Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-taYmir2_g+aWeEVQopvLB5K-0316KAFsBEsXx5OiaM9A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock
Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 4:34 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The small size of the SLRU buffer pools can sometimes become a
> performance problem because it’s not difficult to have a workload
> where the number of buffers actively in use is larger than the
> fixed-size buffer pool. However, just increasing the size of the
> buffer pool doesn’t necessarily help, because the linear search that
> we use for buffer replacement doesn’t scale, and also because
> contention on the single centralized lock limits scalability.
>
> There is a couple of patches proposed in the past to address the
> problem of increasing the buffer pool size, one of the patch [1] was
> proposed by Thomas Munro where we make the size of the buffer pool
> configurable.

In my last email, I forgot to give the link from where I have taken
the base path for dividing the buffer pool in banks so giving the same
here[1].  And looking at this again it seems that the idea of that
patch was from
Andrey M. Borodin and the idea of the SLRU scale factor were
introduced by Yura Sokolov and Ivan Lazarev.  Apologies for missing
that in the first email.

[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/43/2627/

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Add null termination to string received in parallel apply worker
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: remaining sql/json patches