From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Jean-Max Reymond <jmreymond@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: size of cache
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:07:47 +0100
Message-ID: <1121270867.3970.266.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4b09a0c05071301207d452ace@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b09a0c05071301207d452ace@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 10:20 +0200, Jean-Max Reymond wrote:
> with my application, it seems that size of cache has great effect:
> from 512 Kb of L2 cache to 1Mb boost performance with a factor 3 and
> 20% again from 1Mb L2 cache to 2Mb L2 cache.
Memory request time is the main bottleneck in well tuned database
systems, so your results could be reasonable.
> I don't understand why a 512Kb cache L2 is too small to fit the data's
> does it exist a tool to trace processor activity and confirm that
> processor is waiting for memory ?
You have both data and instruction cache on the CPU. It is likely it is
the instruction cache that is too small to fit all of the code required
for your application's workload mix.
Use Intel VTune or similar to show the results you seek.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: simon@2ndquadrant.com, jmreymond@gmail.com
Subject: Re: size of cache
In-Reply-To: <1121270867.3970.266.camel@localhost.localdomain>
* 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