Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

From: "Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Date: 2001-09-29 08:45:52
Message-ID: 007401c148c3$2645dd60$4e79583f@home (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> I have committed changes to implement this proposal.  I'm not seeing
> any significant performance difference on pgbench on my single-CPU
> system ... but pgbench is I/O bound anyway on this hardware, so that's
> not very surprising.  I'll be interested to see what other people
> observe.  (Tatsuo, care to rerun that 1000-client test?)

What is your system? CPU, memory, IDE/SCSI, OS?
Scaling factor and # of clients?

BTW1 - shouldn't we rewrite pgbench to use threads instead of
"libpq async queries"? At least as option. I'd say that with 1000
clients current pgbench implementation is very poor.

BTW2 - shouldn't we learn if there are really portability/performance
issues in using POSIX mutex-es (and cond. variables) in place of
TAS (and SysV semaphores)?

Vadim



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: ChamanyaDate: 2001-09-29 13:18:56
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-09-29 05:37:08
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group