Re: PostgreSQL on multi-CPU systems

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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