Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dmitry Dolgov
Subject Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory
Date
Msg-id CA+q6zcVoGWCU4dNE9zYM5jVWEwNHiTQO_fkCmCWzekN1-gz3OA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistentmemory  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory
List pgsql-hackers
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:53 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 06:00:54PM +0900, Yoshimi Ichiyanagi wrote:
> > The libpmem's pmem_map_file() supported 2M/1G(the size of huge page)
> > alignment, since it could reduce the number of page faults.
> > In addition, libpmem's pmem_memcpy_nodrain() is the function
> > to copy data using single instruction, multiple data(SIMD) instructions
> > and NT store instructions(MOVNT).
> > As a result, using these APIs is faster than using old mmap()/memcpy().
> >
> > Please see the PGCon2018 presentation[1] for the details.
> >
> > [1] https://www.pgcon.org/2018/schedule/attachments/507_PGCon2018_Introducing_PMDK_into_PostgreSQL.pdf
>
> So you say that this represents a 3% gain based on the presentation?
> That may be interesting to dig into it.  Could you provide fresher
> performance numbers?  I am moving this patch to the next CF 2018-10 for
> now, waiting for input from the author.

Unfortunately, the patch has some conflicts now, so probably not only fresher
performance numbers are necessary, but also a rebased version.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] extend the object names to the qualified names inpg_stat_statements
Next
From: Dmitry Dolgov
Date:
Subject: Re: de-deduplicate code in DML execution hooks in postgres_fdw