| From: | Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hakan Kocaman <hkocam(at)googlemail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance |
| Date: | 2010-10-04 19:22:32 |
| Message-ID: | A28AB36A-BA44-45FF-BC05-B8591B71827B@csail.mit.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Oct 4, 2010, at 11:06, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> I guess by "lock-free in the uncontended case" they mean the buffer
> cache manager is lock-free unless you're actually contending on the
> same buffer?
That refers to being able to acquire non-conflicting row/table locks without needing an exclusive LWLock, and acquiring shared LWLocks without spinlocks if possible.
I think the buffer cache manager is the next bottleneck after the row/table lock manager. Seems like it would also be a good candidate for similar techniques, but that's totally uninformed speculation on my part.
Dan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Christensen | 2010-10-04 19:25:19 | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2010-10-04 19:20:28 | Re: wip: functions median and percentile |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-10-04 19:35:44 | Re: [PERFORM] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-10-04 18:49:43 | Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance |