From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |
Date: | 2001-09-29 18:37:49 |
Message-ID: | 200109291837.f8TIbn600131@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I wrote:
> > The following proposal should improve performance substantially when
> > there is contention for a lock, but it creates no portability risks
> > ...
>
> I have committed changes to implement this proposal. I'm not seeing
> any significant performance difference on pgbench on my single-CPU
> system ... but pgbench is I/O bound anyway on this hardware, so that's
> not very surprising. I'll be interested to see what other people
> observe. (Tatsuo, care to rerun that 1000-client test?)
I ran with 20 clients:
$ pgbench -i test
$ pgbench -c 20 -t 100 test
and see no difference in tps performance between the two lock
implementations. I have a Dual PIII 550MHz i386 BSD/OS machine with
SCSI disks.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-09-29 18:38:29 | Re: Pre-forking backend |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-09-29 18:36:59 | Re: Pre-forking backend |