Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Memory Accounting - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Melanie Plageman
Subject Re: Memory Accounting
Date
Msg-id CAAKRu_b2Qxr=GzE7thk8_=JDgYRnOssYBuqWdZ39R2+Heo=oQw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Memory Accounting  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: Memory Accounting
Re: Memory Accounting
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:00 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 13:50 -0700, Soumyadeep Chakraborty wrote:
> Hi Jeff,

Hi Soumyadeep and Melanie,

Thank you for the review!

> max_stack_depth       max level       lazy (ms)       eager (ms)      (eage
> r/lazy)
> 2MB   82      302.715 427.554 1.4123978
> 3MB   3474    567.829 896.143 1.578191674
> 7.67MB        8694    2657.972        4903.063        1.844663149

Thank you for collecting data on this. Were you able to find any
regression when compared to no memory accounting at all?


We didn't spend much time comparing performance with and without
memory accounting, as it seems like this was discussed extensively in
the previous thread.
 
It looks like you agree with the approach and the results. Did you find
any other issues with the patch?

We didn't observe any other problems with the patch and agree with the
approach. It is a good start.
 

I am also including Robert in this thread. He had some concerns the
last time around due to a small regression on POWER.

I think it would be helpful if we could repeat the performance tests
Robert did on that machine with the current patch (unless this version
of the patch is exactly the same as the ones he tested previously).

Thanks,
Soumyadeep & Melanie

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: The flinfo->fn_extra question, from me this time.
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.