| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance |
| Date: | 2010-10-07 18:06:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20101007180620.GY26232@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
* Kevin Grittner (Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov) wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > perhaps it would be possible by, say, increasing the number of
> > lock partitions by 8x. It would be nice to segregate these issues
> > though, because using pread/pwrite is probably a lot less work
> > than rewriting our lock manager.
>
> You mean easier than changing this 4 to a 7?:
>
> #define LOG2_NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS 4
>
> Or am I missing something?
I'm pretty sure we were talking about the change described in the paper
of moving to a system which uses atomic changes instead of spinlocks for
certain locking situations..
If that's all the MIT folks did, they certainly made it sound like alot
more. :)
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-10-07 18:10:19 | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-10-07 18:05:51 | Issues with two-server Synch Rep |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-10-07 18:22:02 | Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance |
| Previous Message | Aaron Turner | 2010-10-07 17:47:54 | large dataset with write vs read clients |