From: | Metin Doslu <metin(at)citusdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers |
Date: | 2013-12-05 16:03:16 |
Message-ID: | CAL1dPcfc2qkPU1o9ecQY46A+aPOjvk4BRDNZEzMS_nNmDFfT0Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
> From what I've seen so far the bigger problem than contention in the
> lwlocks itself, is the spinlock protecting the lwlocks...
Postgres 9.3.1 also reports spindelay, it seems that there is no contention
on spinlocks.
PID 21121 lwlock 0: shacq 0 exacq 33 blk 1 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 33: shacq 7602 exacq 14688 blk 4381 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 34: shacq 7826 exacq 15113 blk 3786 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 35: shacq 7792 exacq 15110 blk 3356 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 36: shacq 7803 exacq 15125 blk 3075 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 37: shacq 7822 exacq 15177 blk 2756 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 38: shacq 7694 exacq 14863 blk 2513 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 39: shacq 7914 exacq 15320 blk 2400 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 40: shacq 7855 exacq 15203 blk 2220 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 41: shacq 7942 exacq 15363 blk 1996 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 42: shacq 7828 exacq 15115 blk 1872 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 43: shacq 7820 exacq 15159 blk 1833 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 44: shacq 7709 exacq 14916 blk 1590 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 45: shacq 7831 exacq 15134 blk 1619 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 46: shacq 7744 exacq 14989 blk 1559 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 47: shacq 7808 exacq 15111 blk 1473 spindelay 0
PID 21121 lwlock 48: shacq 7729 exacq 14929 blk 1381 spindelay 0
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-05 16:05:17 | Re: Performance optimization of btree binary search |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-05 15:59:49 | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Skarsol | 2013-12-05 16:13:49 | Re: WAL + SSD = slow inserts? |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2013-12-05 15:57:49 | Re: One huge db vs many small dbs |