Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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