From: | Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 16:52:17 |
Message-ID: | 3F1D6BC1.1060405@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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.
I will continue testing this kind of stuff because this is a very
strange yet important issue.
I will try to get some code from the customer. This is mostly
non-disclosure stuff so I am not sure what we can use. I just wanted to
ask if somebody has a reasonable explanation and if somebody can verify
this behaviour.
Maybe we will find the reason some day :(.
Sorry that I cannot provide more information at the moment.
Regards,
Hans
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706; +43/664/233 90 75
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-07-22 16:56:28 | Re: PostgreSQL 7.3.3 and Intel C compiler |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-07-22 16:51:48 | Re: threads.c |