From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
Date: | 2002-01-04 05:02:29 |
Message-ID: | 200201040502.g0452TW23333@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > > OK, so now we know that while the new lock code handles the select(1)
> > > > problem better, we also know that on AIX the old select(1) code wasn't
> > > > as bad as we thought.
> > >
> > > It still seems that the select() blocking method should be a loser.
> >
> > No question the new locking code is better. It just frustrates me we
> > can't get something to show that.
>
> Even though I haven't completed controlled benchmarks yet, 7.2b4 was using
> all of my CPU time, whereas a patched version is using around half of CPU
> time, all in user space.
>
> I think not pissing away all our time in the scheduler is a big
> improvement!
Yes, the new patch is clearly better than 7.2b4. We are really hoping
to see the patched version beat 7.1.
--
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 | 2002-01-04 05:34:53 | Re: More problem with scripts |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-04 04:59:42 | Re: shmctl portability problem |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fredrik Estreen | 2002-01-04 06:21:54 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
Previous Message | Jeffrey W. Baker | 2002-01-04 04:59:11 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |