Hi,
On 2014-04-16 02:57:54 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Why should I be the one with all the answers?
Who said you need to be? The only thing I am saying is that I don't
agree with some of your suggestions?
I only responded to the thread now because downthread (in
CAM3SWZQa2OAVUrfPL-df=we1sMozKBR392SW_NoVuKZEPXhu9w@mail.gmail.com) you
further argued using the timestamp - which I think is a flawed
concept. So I thought it'd be fair to argue against it now, rather than
later.
> Aren't you interested in the significance of the patch, and the test case?
Not particularly in the specifics to be honest. The tradeoffs of the
techniques you used in there seem prohibitive to me. It's easy to make
individual cases faster by sacrificing others.
Sometimes it's useful to prototype solutions while narrowing the scope
for evaluation to get faster feedback, but as I don't see the solutions
to be applicable in the general case...
I think it's very important to improve upon the current state. It's imo
one of postgres' biggest issues. But it's also far from trivial,
otherwise it'd be done already.
I *personally* don't think it's very likely that we can improve
significantly upon the current state as long as every process regularly
participates in the clock sweep. ISTM that prevents many more elaborate
techniques to be used (cache misses/bus traffic, locking). But that's
just gut feeling.
I also think there are bigger issues than the actual LRU/whatever
behaviour, namely the scalability issues around shared buffers making
both small and big s_b settings major bottlenecks. But that's just where
I have seen more issues personally.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
