On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't really like the term "memory pool" either. We're growing a
>> bunch of little special-purpose allocators all over the code base
>> because of palloc's somewhat dubious performance and memory usage
>> characteristics, but if any of those are referred to as memory pools
>> it has thus far escaped my notice.
>
> BTW, I'm not necessarily determined to make the new special-purpose
> allocator work exactly as proposed. It seemed useful to prioritize
> simplicity, and currently so there is one big "huge palloc()" with
> which we blow our memory budget, and that's it. However, I could
> probably be more clever about "freeing ranges" initially preserved for
> a now-exhausted tape. That kind of thing.
What about the case where we think that there will be a lot of data
and have a lot of work_mem available, but then the user sends us 4
rows because of some mis-estimation?
> With the on-the-fly merge memory patch, I'm improving locality of
> access (for each "tuple proper"/"tuple itself"). If I also happen to
> improve the situation around palloc() fragmentation at the same time,
> then so much the better, but that's clearly secondary.
I don't really understand this comment.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company