| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: mosbench revisited |
| Date: | 2011-08-15 22:22:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HM5y0tx+-e4U+OkpQRPKgtobnhx37OUgi93anK1WvVSUQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm kind of interested by the
> result, actually, as I had feared that the spinlock protecting
> ProcArrayLock was going to be a bigger problem sooner.
I think this depends on how many connections you have. If you try to
scale up your benchmark by having hundreds of connections then get
O(n^2) increase in the time spent with the procarray locked. It sounds
like they pinned the number of connections at the number of cores they
had. That makes sense if they're intentionally driving a cpu-bound
benchmark but it means they won't run into this problem.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2011-08-15 22:43:18 | Re: Should we have an optional limit on the recursion depth of recursive CTEs? |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2011-08-15 22:09:35 | Re: synchronized snapshots |