Horton

Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile

Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Sergey Koposov <koposov@ast.cam.ac.uk>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-05-25T16:13:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Improve bulk-insert performance by keeping the current target buffer pinned

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
>> Hm, what if BufTableHashPartition() was pseudo randomized so that
>> different backends would not get the same buffer partition for a
>> particular tag?
>
> Huh?  You have to make sure that different backends will find the same
> buffer for the same page, so I don't see how that can possibly work.

Right -- duh.  Well, hm.  Is this worth fixing?  ISTM there's a bit of
'optimizing for pgbench-itis' in the buffer partitions -- they seem
optimized to lever the mostly random access behavior of pgbench.  But
how likely is it to see multiple simultaneous scans in the real world?
 Interleaving scans like that is not a very effective optimization --
if it was me, it'd be trying to organize something around a
partitioned tid scan for parallel sequential access.

merlin