pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: Atri Sharma <atri.jiit@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Cc: Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Page replacement algorithm in buffer cache
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:52:05 -0400
Message-ID: <29181.1363981925@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHyXU0xMFvr2eiR+2Lv=dj+UON+muei_pjbUP2BMetiR-UTASw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOeZVic4HikhmzVD=ZP4JY9g8PgpyiQQOXOELWP=kR+=H1Frgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<514bf302.84d5440a.43f2.ffffe411SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
	<08BBC126-D375-4743-B9A6-D1320D05D5C7@gmail.com>
	<514c3395.487a420a.28d1.764eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
	<CAOeZVifZ89tOtcKeC6C2917sVfSyR3xiMenorg8sNR2+y2W=Wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+CSw_se74iDCLswBfF7_Rd1542nhyw-YSmQ+OqDwEzu0rZkSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3985.1363960959@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAM-w4HM2A0rAGN-KRyDQfcH+8YsDvCJ4x=XYAsS+G2kp56qOjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOeZVicGOGQZJZKFXFYjm0wDFA63+7cmzzGQ63nP+165-5qiLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHyXU0xMFvr2eiR+2Lv=dj+UON+muei_pjbUP2BMetiR-UTASw@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Atri Sharma <atri.jiit@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What is the general thinking? Is it time to start testing again and
>> thinking about improvements to the current algorithm?

> well, what problem are you trying to solve exactly?  the main problems
> I see today are not so much in terms of page replacement but spinlock
> and lwlock contention.

Even back when we last hacked on that algorithm, the concerns were not
so much about which pages it replaced as how much overhead and
contention was created by the management algorithm.  I haven't seen any
reason to think we have a problem with the quality of the replacement
choices.  The proposal to increase the initial usage count would
definitely lead to more overhead/contention, though, because it would
result in having to circle around all the buffers more times (on
average) to get a free buffer.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (82+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <29181.1363981925@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../29181.1363981925@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/29181.1363981925@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, mmoncure@gmail.com, atri.jiit@gmail.com, stark@mit.edu, ants@cybertec.at, amit.kapila@huawei.com
  Subject: Re: Page replacement algorithm in buffer cache
  In-Reply-To: <29181.1363981925@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* 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