From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2 |
Date: | 2014-02-03 23:17:05 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1xiAYXxaBMGZ9DVzZRGggv0Jk4hz3CAmR87S+zyucvqEA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>wrote:
>
> Some background:
> The setups that triggered me into working on the patchset didn't really
> have a pgbench like workload, the individual queries were/are more
> complicated even though it's still an high throughput OLTP workload. And
> the contention was *much* higher than what I can reproduce with pgbench
> -S, there was often nearly all time spent in the lwlock's spinlock, and
> it was primarily the buffer mapping lwlocks, being locked in shared
> mode. The difference is that instead of locking very few buffers per
> query like pgbench does, they touched much more.
>
Perhaps I should try to argue for this extension to pgbench again:
I think it would go a good job of exercising what you want, provided you
set the scale so that all data fit in RAM but not in shared_buffers.
Or maybe you want it to fit in shared_buffers, since the buffer mapping
lock was contended in shared mode--that suggests the problem is finding the
buffer that already has the page, not making a buffer to have the page.
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-02-03 23:17:13 | Re: Misaligned BufferDescriptors causing major performance problems on AMD |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-02-03 22:25:26 | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |