From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | konstantin knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres with pthread |
Date: | 2017-12-08 22:28:35 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdsvg-cgMi95a-CAyirbEk8hfoaaGGAi1OU1cSYd7v68BQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 1:09 AM, konstantin knizhnik <
k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> I am not going to show stack traces of all 1000 threads.
> But you may notice that proc array lock really seems be be a bottleneck.
>
Yes, proc array lock easily becomes a bottleneck on multicore machine with
large number of connections. Related to this, another patch helping to
large number of connections is CSN. When our snapshot model was invented,
xip was just array of few elements, and that cause no problem. Now, we're
considering threads to help us handling thousands of connections. Snapshot
with thousands of xips looks ridiculous. Collecting such a large snapshot
could be more expensive than single index lookup.
These two patches threads and CSN are both complicated and require hard
work during multiple release cycles to get committed. But I really hope
that their cumulative effect can dramatically improve situation on high
number of connections. There are already some promising benchmarks in CSN
thread. I wonder if we already can do some cumulative benchmarks of
threads + CSN?
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-12-08 22:42:13 | Re: CUBE seems a bit confused about ORDER BY |
Previous Message | legrand legrand | 2017-12-08 22:25:49 | Re: Partition pruning for Star Schema |