Re: Drop type "smgr"?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Andres Freund
Тема Re: Drop type "smgr"?
Дата
Msg-id 20190228181144.46a3vq3dbn7tncaq@alap3.anarazel.de
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Drop type "smgr"?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2019-02-28 12:36:50 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, Andres will probably complain about that.  He thinks, IIUC, that
> the buffer tags are too wide already and that it's significantly
> hurting performance on very very common operations - like buffer
> lookups.

Correct. Turns out especially comparing the keys after the hash match is
pretty expensive. It also is a significant factor influencing the size
of the hashtable, which influences how much of it can be in cache.

My plan is still to move to a two tiered system, where we have one
unordered datastructure to map from (db, tablespace, oid) to a secondary
ordered datastructure that then maps from (block number) to an actual
offset. With the first being cached somewhere in RelationData, therefore
not being performance critical. But while I hope to work for that in 13,
I don't think making other large projects depend on it would be smart.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Jeff Janes
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Bloom index cost model seems to be wrong
Следующее
От: David Steele
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode