From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:16:42 -0300
Message-ID: <20160112001642.GA802875@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151230160137.034371e0@fujitsu>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Andres, Robert, are you still reviewing this patch?
Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> Here is a clean version of the patch. Step 1 is an optimization. Step 2
> refactors this:
>
> HTAB *
> ShmemInitHash(const char *name, /* table string name for shmem index */
> - long init_size, /* initial table size */
> + long init_size, /* initial table size XXX ignored,
> refactor! */
So you were saying some posts upthread that the new hash tables would
"borrow" AN elements from the freelist then put AN elements back when
too many got unused. Is that idea embodied in this patch? I'm nervous
about continuing a line of development that does away with the
"init_size" concept completely, but if this patch is keep the "borrow"
concept then maybe it doesn't matter.
> -/* Number of partitions of the shared buffer mapping hashtable */
> -#define NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS 128
> -
> /* Number of partitions the shared lock tables are divided into */
> -#define LOG2_NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS 4
> +#define LOG2_NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS 7
> #define NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS (1 << LOG2_NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS)
>
> +/* Number of partitions of the shared buffer mapping hashtable */
> +#define NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS
> +
> /* Number of partitions the shared predicate lock tables are divided into */
> #define LOG2_NUM_PREDICATELOCK_PARTITIONS 4
> #define NUM_PREDICATELOCK_PARTITIONS (1 << LOG2_NUM_PREDICATELOCK_PARTITIONS)
I find this odd. Why is it a good idea to define the bufMapping
partitions like this? What's the explanation for the performance
numbers you saw?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru, robertmhaas@gmail.com, teodor@sigaev.ru, andres@anarazel.de
Subject: Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex
In-Reply-To: <20160112001642.GA802875@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox