From: | darcy(at)druid(dot)net (D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain) |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL on multi-CPU systems |
Date: | 2001-03-15 12:53:17 |
Message-ID: | 20010315125317.C3B921A68@druid.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thus spake Tom Lane
> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > I have tested PostgreSQL with 2-4 CPU linux boxes. In summary, 2 CPU
> > was a big win, but 4 was not. I'm not sure where the bottle neck is
> > though.
>
> Our not-very-good implementation of spin locking (using select() to
> wait) might have something to do with this. Sometime soon I'd like to
> look at using POSIX semaphores where available, instead of spinlocks.
One thing I notice is that a single query can seem to block other queries,
at least to some extent. It makes me wonder if we effectively have a
single threaded system. In fact, I have some simple queries that if
I send a bunch at once, the first one can take 15 seconds while the
others zip through. Is this related to what you are talking about?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Suraj Kumar S. | 2001-03-15 12:56:52 | Unicode in postgresql |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2001-03-15 11:57:49 | Re: Performance monitor signal handler |