From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Optimizing Read-Only Scalability |
Date: | 2009-05-14 17:59:21 |
Message-ID: | 1242323961.3843.579.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 13:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > In a thread on -perform it has been observed that our Read-Only
> > scalability is not as good as it could be. One problem being that we
> > need to scan the whole of the ProcArray to derive a snapshot, which
> > becomes the dominant task with many users.
>
> GetSnapshotData doesn't take an exclusive lock. Neither does start or
> end of a read-only transaction. AFAIK there is no reason, and certainly
> no shred of experimental evidence, to think that ProcArrayLock
> contention is the bottleneck for read-only scenarios.
I agree completely; I didn't mention the ProcArrayLock at all...
I did mention scanning the procarray itself, which is likely too big to
fit in on-chip cache and so must be re-read from main RAM each time.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-14 18:06:40 | Re: Optimizing Read-Only Scalability |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-14 17:55:27 | Re: Optimizing Read-Only Scalability |