From: | "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <lamigo(at)atc(dot)unican(dot)es> |
---|---|
To: | "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: a tiny question |
Date: | 2002-11-05 16:06:13 |
Message-ID: | 00ba01c284e5$437e19b0$cab990c1@atc.unican.es |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
a guess it's said inter-locking, I mean data accessed exclusively.
I apologize for my english
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <lamigo(at)atc(dot)unican(dot)es>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] a tiny question
> "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <lamigo(at)atc(dot)unican(dot)es> writes:
> > When we improve seq scans, systems scales well up to 8 cpus.When we
improve index
> > scan, query performance increase but system stops scaling at about 4
proccessors,
> > profiling shows that it is due to increased memory contention
>
> What do you mean by "memory contention"?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Neil
>
> --
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2002-11-05 16:06:54 | Re: protocol change in 7.4 |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-11-05 16:05:30 | Re: Is my Internet connection slow |