What is the opinion of the list as to the best way of measuring if the
following implementation is ok?


As mentioned in earlier mails, this will reduce the per-backend usage of
memory by an amount which will be a fraction (single digit percentage)
of (NBuffers
* int) size. I have done pgbench/dbt2 runs and I do not see any negative
impact because of this. Are there any other suggestions for measuring the
backend memory footprint?


On 2/21/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Added to TODO:

* Consider decreasing the amount of memory used by PrivateRefCount



Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 14:42 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > int8 still seems like overkjll. When will the ref counts go above 2
on a
> > > regular basis? Surely refcount=2 is just chance at the best of
> > >
> > > Refcount -> 2 bits per value, plus a simple overflow list? That
> > > allow 0,1,2 ref counts plus 3 means look in hashtable to find real
> > > refcount.
> >
> > At two bits, would we run into contention for the byte by multiple
> > backends?
> No contention, its a private per-backend data structure. That's why we
> want to reduce the size of it so badly.
> --
>   Simon Riggs
>   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

EnterpriseDB               http://www.enterprisedb.com

Reply via email to