| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Update on the spinlock->pthread_mutex patch experimental: replace s_lock spinlock code with pthread_mutex on linux |
| Date: | 2012-06-29 17:11:51 |
| Message-ID: | 201206291911.51506.andres@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday, June 29, 2012 07:07:11 PM Nils Goroll wrote:
> > Also, 20 transactions per connection is not enough of a run to make
> > any evaluation on.
>
> As you can see I've repeated the tests 10 times. I've tested slight
> variations as mentioned above, so I was looking for quick results with
> acceptable variation.
Running only 20 transactions is still meaningless. Quite often that will means
that no backends run concurrently because the starting up takes longer than to
process those 20 transactions. You need at the very, very least 10s. Check out
-T.
Andres
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nils Goroll | 2012-06-29 17:14:40 | Re: Update on the spinlock->pthread_mutex patch experimental: replace s_lock spinlock code with pthread_mutex on linux |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-06-29 17:08:09 | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |