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: Effects of pgbench "scale factor" |
Date: | 2002-01-07 01:59:19 |
Message-ID: | 200201070159.g071xJr10022@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Based on these results I think that the spinlock and LWLock performance
> issues we have been discussing are not really as significant for
> real-world use as they appear when running pgbench with a small scale
> factor. My inclination right now is to commit the second variant of
> my LWLock patch, leave spinlock spinning where it is, and call it a
> day for 7.2. We can always revisit this stuff again in future
> development cycles.
I agree. 7.3 can bring more improvements like SMP detection, dead tuple
index markers, and lock granularity improvments. They are all on the
TODO list or in the 7.3 open items list.
--
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 | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-01-07 02:02:47 | Re: pgcryto strangeness... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-07 01:37:05 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |