From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hamza Bin Sohail <hsohail(at)purdue(dot)edu> |
Subject: | Re: Query regarding postgres lock contention - Followup |
Date: | 2011-10-05 18:01:11 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZa3TCTjFHioCtAp3vKSLNQ2U19G3wOyoEWecu9M8kRyA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Hamza Bin Sohail <hsohail(at)purdue(dot)edu> wrote:
>
>> My postgres version is 8.3.7
>
> Why such an old version? Why exclude the available bug fixes?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
>
>>> I am aware that lock contention can be checked with lockstat (and
>>> with pg_locks ? ) but I wanted to know if someone can tell me how
>>> much contention there would be for this database in a 16-core
>>> system vs a 4-core system. I just need a rough idea.
>
> How many database connections will be used? If more than about
> twice the number of cores, you should probably be going through a
> transaction-based connection pool.
>
> With 16 cores, even with a properly configured connection pool, you
> will probably be on the edge of where spinlock contention starts
> eating significant CPU time. With enough system RAM and proper
> tuning the hit should be fairly minor, I think. It really gets bad
> at 32 cores, although that is being improved for next year's 9.2
> release.
I think that on write-heavy workloads (like pgbench) we bottleneck on
lightweight lock contention around 8 cores. :-(
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-05 18:09:23 | Re: [v9.2] DROP statement reworks |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-10-05 17:48:31 | Re: Query regarding postgres lock contention - Followup |