Re: Performance under contention

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Віталій Тимчишин <tivv00(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>, Jignesh Shah <jkshah(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance under contention
Date: 2010-12-08 04:23:48
Message-ID: AANLkTim2nr+pKJ6ZwduEthzdV94=Ovh9ys_E6nEZCWbr@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

2010/12/7 Віталій Тимчишин <tivv00(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> As far as I can see from the source, there is a lot of code executed under
> the partition lock protection, like two hash searches (and possibly
> allocations).

Yeah, that was my concern, too, though Tom seems skeptical (perhaps
rightly). And I'm not really sure why the PROCLOCKs need to be in a
hash table anyway - if we know the PROC and LOCK we can surely look up
the PROCLOCK pretty expensively by following the PROC SHM_QUEUE.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-12-08 04:24:14 Re: Performance under contention
Previous Message Ivan Voras 2010-12-07 22:43:14 Re: Performance under contention