> 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)?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Chamanya||Date: 2001-09-29 13:18:56|
|Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-09-29 05:37:08|
|Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |