| From: | Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing Transaction Start/End Contention |
| Date: | 2008-03-13 13:00:47 |
| Message-ID: | 47D9257F.9000703@mark.mielke.cc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 20:23 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>> Is this still a TODO?
>>>
>> I think so.
>>
>
> How about this wording:
>
> "Review Simon's claims to improve performance
What sort of evidence is usually compelling? It seems to me that this
sort of change only benefits configurations with dozens or more CPUs/cores?
I ask, because I saw a few references to "I see no performance change -
but then, I don't have the right hardware." It seems to me that it
should be obvious that contention will only show up under very high
concurrency? :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-03-13 13:34:43 | Re: Ideas input sought for this year's SOC page |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-03-13 12:44:37 | Re: Reducing Transaction Start/End Contention |