On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 10:59 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 11:50 AM Dilip Kumar
> wrote:
> > [...]
> [1] 0001-Make-all-SLRU-buffer-sizes-configurable: This is the same
> patch as the previous patch set
> [2] 0002-Add-a-buffer-mapping-table-for-SLRUs: Patch to introduce
> buffer
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 4:44 PM Andrey M. Borodin
wrote:
>
>
> > On 6 Nov 2023, at 14:31, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > dynahash is notoriously slow, which is why we have simplehash.h since
> > commit b30d3ea824c5. Maybe we could use that instead.
>
> Dynahash has lock partitioning. Simplehash h
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 4:44 PM Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
> > On 6 Nov 2023, at 14:31, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > dynahash is notoriously slow, which is why we have simplehash.h since
> > commit b30d3ea824c5. Maybe we could use that instead.
>
> Dynahash has lock partitioning. Simplehash has no
> On 6 Nov 2023, at 14:31, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> dynahash is notoriously slow, which is why we have simplehash.h since
> commit b30d3ea824c5. Maybe we could use that instead.
Dynahash has lock partitioning. Simplehash has not, AFAIK.
The thing is we do not really need a hash function - p
On 2023-Nov-06, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> Yeah so we can see with a small bank size <=16 slots we are seeing
> that the fetching page with hash is 30% slower than the sequential
> search, but beyond 32 slots sequential search is become slower as you
> grow the number of slots whereas with hash it stays
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 1:05 PM Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
> > On 6 Nov 2023, at 09:09, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Having hashtable to find SLRU page in the buffer IMV is too slow. Some
> >> comments on this approach can be found here [0].
> >> I'm OK with having HTAB for that if we are sure
> On 6 Nov 2023, at 09:09, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
>
>> Having hashtable to find SLRU page in the buffer IMV is too slow. Some
>> comments on this approach can be found here [0].
>> I'm OK with having HTAB for that if we are sure performance does not degrade
>> significantly, but I really doubt
On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 1:37 AM Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2023, at 09:20, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> changed the logic of SlruAdjustNSlots() in 0002, such that now it
> starts with the next power of 2 value of the configured slots and
> keeps doubling the number of banks until we reach the
> On 30 Oct 2023, at 09:20, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> changed the logic of SlruAdjustNSlots() in 0002, such that now it
> starts with the next power of 2 value of the configured slots and
> keeps doubling the number of banks until we reach the number of banks
> to the max SLRU_MAX_BANKS(128) and b
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 5:58 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 9:40 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 9:43 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > This and other results shared by you look promising. Will there be any
> > > improvement in workloads related to clog b
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 9:40 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 9:43 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > This and other results shared by you look promising. Will there be any
> > improvement in workloads related to clog buffer usage?
>
> I did not understand this question can you explai
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:34 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2023-Oct-11, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> > In my last email, I forgot to give the link from where I have taken
> > the base path for dividing the buffer pool in banks so giving the same
> > here[1]. And looking at this again it seems that th
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 06:04:13PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Like everybody else, I like having less GUCs to configure, but going
> this far to avoid them looks rather disastrous to me. IMO we should
> just use Munro's older patches that gave one GUC per SLRU, and users
> only need to increas
On 2023-Oct-11, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> In my last email, I forgot to give the link from where I have taken
> the base path for dividing the buffer pool in banks so giving the same
> here[1]. And looking at this again it seems that the idea of that
> patch was from Andrey M. Borodin and the idea of
On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 9:43 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> This and other results shared by you look promising. Will there be any
> improvement in workloads related to clog buffer usage?
I did not understand this question can you explain this a bit? In
short, if it is regarding the performance then
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 4:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> The small size of the SLRU buffer pools can sometimes become a
> performance problem because it’s not difficult to have a workload
> where the number of buffers actively in use is larger than the
> fixed-size buffer pool. However, just increas
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 5:57 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 4:34 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> In my last email, I forgot to give the link from where I have taken
> the base path for dividing the buffer pool in banks so giving the same
> here[1]. And looking at this again it seems
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 4:34 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> The small size of the SLRU buffer pools can sometimes become a
> performance problem because it’s not difficult to have a workload
> where the number of buffers actively in use is larger than the
> fixed-size buffer pool. However, just increas
The small size of the SLRU buffer pools can sometimes become a
performance problem because it’s not difficult to have a workload
where the number of buffers actively in use is larger than the
fixed-size buffer pool. However, just increasing the size of the
buffer pool doesn’t necessarily help, beca
101 - 119 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
