Re: Possible performance improvement: buffer replacement policy
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Possible performance improvement: buffer replacement policy |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 26100.971711392@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Possible performance improvement: buffer replacement policy (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> It looks like it wouldn't take too much work to replace shared buffers
>> on the basis of LRU-2 instead of LRU, so I'm thinking about trying it.
>>
>> Has anyone looked into this area? Is there a better method to try?
> Sounds like a perfect idea. Good luck. :-)
Actually, the idea went down in flames :-(, but I neglected to report
back to pghackers about it. I did do some code to manage buffers as
LRU-2. I didn't have any good performance test cases to try it with,
but Richard Brosnahan was kind enough to re-run the TPC tests previously
published by Great Bridge with that code in place. Wasn't any faster,
in fact possibly a little slower, likely due to the extra CPU time spent
on buffer freelist management. It's possible that other scenarios might
show a better result, but right now I feel pretty discouraged about the
LRU-2 idea and am not pursuing it.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: