At Tue, 12 Jan 2021 08:49:53 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote in > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 7:03 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > At Thu, 7 Jan 2021 09:25:22 +0000, "k.jami...@fujitsu.com" > > <k.jami...@fujitsu.com> wrote in: > > > > Thanks for the detailed tests. NBuffers/32 seems like an appropriate > > > > value for the threshold based on these results. I would like to > > > > slightly modify part of the commit message in the first patch as below > > > > [1], otherwise, I am fine with the changes. Unless you or anyone else > > > > has any more comments, I am planning to push the 0001 and 0002 > > > > sometime next week. > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > "The recovery path of DropRelFileNodeBuffers() is optimized so that > > > > scanning of the whole buffer pool can be avoided when the number of > > > > blocks to be truncated in a relation is below a certain threshold. For > > > > such cases, we find the buffers by doing lookups in BufMapping table. > > > > This improves the performance by more than 100 times in many cases > > > > when several small tables (tested with 1000 relations) are truncated > > > > and where the server is configured with a large value of shared > > > > buffers (greater than 100GB)." > > > > > > Thank you for taking a look at the results of the tests. And it's also > > > consistent with the results from Tang too. > > > The commit message LGTM. > > > > +1. > > > > I have pushed the 0001.
Thank you for commiting this. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
