From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Advice on testing buffer spin lock contention |
Date: | 2013-04-15 17:54:30 |
Message-ID: | CAOeZVico20+zAYx00EfAg2w-G1N65uny2EwG97jRO+7ec3HwUQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> You will want a select only workload in which all data fits in
> shared_buffers, and that doesn't do a round trip to some external driver
> program for each row selected.
>
> I proposed a patch for pgbench to add a new transaction of this nature last
> year under the subject "pgbench--new transaction type". Heikki also
> described how you can make a custom pgbench -f file to accomplish the same
> thing without having to change and recompile pgbench.
>
>
> There was also a length discussion about nailing certain pages so they don't
> need to get pinned and unpinned all the time, under "9.2beta1, parallel
> queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the
> oprofile"
>
Thanks a ton, we will try it out.
Regards,
Atri
--
Regards,
Atri
l'apprenant
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-04-15 19:30:51 | Re: INDEX Performance Issue |
Previous Message | Atri Sharma | 2013-04-15 06:09:24 | Advice on testing buffer spin lock contention |