From: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Myron Scott <mscott(at)sacadia(dot)com> |
Cc: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Using Threads? |
Date: | 2001-01-02 15:52:34 |
Message-ID: | 20010102075233.H19572@fw.wintelcom.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Myron Scott <mscott(at)sacadia(dot)com> [010102 07:45] wrote:
>
> Karel Zak wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Myron Scott wrote:
> >
> >
> >> spinlocks rewritten to mutex_
> >> locktable uses sema_
> >> some cond_ in bufmgr.c
> >
> >
> > Interesting, have you some comperation between IPC PostgresSQl anf
> > your thread based PostgreSQL.
> >
> > Karel
>
> Yes, I did some comparisions but it is hard to
> make accurate evaluations on the data. I basically
> did 1000 inserts from 7.0.2 and the modified verison
> from 8 simultaneous clients. The original 7.0.2
> was faster by an an order of magnitude. This needs to
> looked into more though. It was just a rough test b/c clients
> and server all running on the same machine (Ultra 10
> w/512MB RAM).
It's possible what you're seeing is the entire process
wait for a disk IO to complete.
I'm wondering, how many lwps does your system use? Are all
the threads bound to a single lwp or do you let the threads
manager handle this all for you?
> I don't really know what the impact of changing some of
> the locking mechanisms is.
heh. :)
> On the one hand, there is alot of overhead associated
> with using TAO ORB as the fe<->be protocol. The 7.0.2
> fe<->be is pretty efficient, TAO with IIOP not as much so.
> At the same time, using prepared statements when doing
> the same insert with different variables over and over
> cuts out re-parsing and planning the statement on every
> execute.
>
> Lastly, I really didn't optimize my code at all. There
> are some places where GetEnv() in called over and over
> to get the thread local variable where it should only
> be called once in the method and reused.
>
> Speed wasn't the motivation, I just wanted to see if threads
> and PostgreSQL could be done.
Well it'd be better to see if threads+postgresql could be
made faster than non-threaded postgresql.
Do you see yourself with some extra free time in the upcommming
weeks? :)
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net|alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Myron Scott | 2001-01-02 16:46:02 | Re: Using Threads? |
Previous Message | Myron Scott | 2001-01-02 15:43:55 | Re: Using Threads? |