| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 7.3.3 and Intel C compiler |
| Date: | 2003-07-22 16:56:28 |
| Message-ID: | 200307221656.h6MGuSg28907@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hans-Jrgen Schnig wrote:
> > But the snapshots only are grabbing the xids from each proc, right?
> > Doesn't seem that would take very long.
> >
> > If this is the bottleneck, maybe we need a shared proc lock.
> >
>
>
> I had a hard day testing and verifying this kind of stuff. We have run
> several hundred benchmarks at the customer using many different
> settings. SERIALIZABLE was the key to high-performance. I have run
> dozens of different benchmarks today (cursors, simple selects,
> concurrent stuff, ...). I have not found a difference. I have no idea
> why the customer's system was so much faster in SERIALIZABLE mode. They
> use a native C++ implementation of the FE/BE protocol but as far as I
> have seen their database layer does not care about transaction isolation
> too much.
They do the backend protocol using a custom implementation. Why would
they do that?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-07-22 16:57:48 | Re: dblink_ora - a first shot on Oracle ... |
| Previous Message | Hans-Jürgen Schönig | 2003-07-22 16:52:17 | Re: PostgreSQL 7.3.3 and Intel C compiler |