From: | Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Parallel (concurrent) inserts? |
Date: | 2012-05-25 23:56:57 |
Message-ID: | CAF-QHFWALNOmSj_+EVbdRc=e5kai5ckRL7P2153SzmkcPO=u-w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 26 May 2012 01:36, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm wondering if there is ia document describing which guarantees (if
>> any) PostgreSQL makes about concurrency for various operations? Speaking
>> in general (i.e. IO can handle it, number of CPU cores and client
>> threads is optimal), are fully concurrent operations (independant and
>> non-blocking) possible for:
>
> By "fully concurrent" do you mean that there is no detectable
> sub-linear scaling at all? I'm pretty sure that no such guarantees
> can be made.
> For concurrent bulk loads, there was severe contention on generating
> WAL between concurrent bulk loaders. That is greatly improved in the
> upcoming 9.2 release.
I was thinking about major exclusive locks in the code paths which
would block multiple clients operating on unrelated data (the same
questions go for update operations). For example: if the free space
map or whole index trees are exclusively locked, things like that. The
WAL issue you mention seems exactly like what I was asking about, but
are there any others?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2012-05-26 01:18:40 | Re: pg_dump and thousands of schemas |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-05-25 23:36:48 | Re: Parallel (concurrent) inserts? |