From: Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com>
To: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: anyone tried to use hoard allocator?
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:00:18 -0700
Message-ID: <340D90B6-9FA3-4EBA-930A-DECA0CF916CB@blighty.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <082fcdbd51cc660179f2a962bdae1b06.squirrel@sq.gransy.com>
References: <082fcdbd51cc660179f2a962bdae1b06.squirrel@sq.gransy.com>
On Mar 26, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> today I've noticed this link on HN: http://plasma.cs.umass.edu/emery/hoard
>
> Seems like an interesting option for systems with a lot of CPUs that are
> doing a lot of alloc operations. Right now I don't have a suitable system
> to test it - anyone tried to benchmark it?
It's just another allocator - not a bad one, but it's been around for years. It's
mostly aimed at reducing contention in multi-threaded applications, so
it's not terribly applicable to strictly single-threaded postgresql.
It's licensing is pretty much incompatible with postgresql too.
Cheers,
Steve
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: steve@blighty.com
Subject: Re: anyone tried to use hoard allocator?
In-Reply-To: <340D90B6-9FA3-4EBA-930A-DECA0CF916CB@blighty.com>
* 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