On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 4:32 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I was unable to notice any improvements in any of the microbenchmarks
> that I've been using to test the index prefetching patch set. For
> whatever reason, these test cases are neither improved nor regressed
> by your patch series.
Correct
On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 10:48 AM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I quickly hacked together some patches for this. 0001 adds new static
> variables so that we have a separate array of the buffers and the index for
> the current ReservedRefCountEntry. 0002 optimizes the linear search in
> GetPrivateRefCoun
Hi,
On October 24, 2025 3:43:34 PM GMT+03:00, Yura Sokolov
wrote:
>03.10.2025 23:51, Nathan Bossart пишет:
>> Sorry for the noise. I fixed x86-64 builds in v2.
>>
>
>Why not just use simplehash for private ref counts?
>Without separation on array and overflow parts.
>Just single damn simple ha
03.10.2025 23:51, Nathan Bossart пишет:
> Sorry for the noise. I fixed x86-64 builds in v2.
>
Why not just use simplehash for private ref counts?
Without separation on array and overflow parts.
Just single damn simple hash table.
--
regards
Yura Sokolov aka funny-falcon
Sorry for the noise. I fixed x86-64 builds in v2.
--
nathan
>From 50debef2733eeaae85031a005a48b1d645da072d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Bossart
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 21:22:17 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] prepare bufmgr for simd
---
src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr.c | 35 ++
(new thread)
On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 02:47:25PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I see a variety for increased CPU usage:
>>
>> 1) The private ref count infrastructure in bufmgr.c gets a bit slower once
>>more buffers are pinned
>
> The problem mainly seems to be that the branches in the loop
