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

Re: Postgresql on multi-core CPU's: is this old news?

From: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgresql on multi-core CPU's: is this old news?
Date: 2011-04-29 14:27:08
Message-ID: 01F90FA1-24A2-4135-AFC5-B3E000AF6784@nasby.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Apr 7, 2011, at 1:13 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 02:21 PM, Mischa Sandberg wrote:
>> Came across the following in a paper from Oct 2010. Was wondering is this is old news I missed in this group.
>> http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/linux:osdi10.pdf
>> about Linux optimization on multi-core CPU’s.
> 
> Only a little old; http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/MIT-benchmarks-pgsql-multicore-up-to-48-performance-td3173545.html shows most of the obvious comments to be made about it.  There is more detail explaining why the hand-waving done in the paper about increasing NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS is not a simple improvement at http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Lock-partitions-td1952557.html

Given that when those tests were done 16 cores was a massive machine, it would probably be a good idea to run them again. If anyone is interested in doing that let me know; we have a 40 core machine that I could probably arrange access to.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mark ReidDate: 2011-04-29 15:06:39
Subject: BUG #5998: CLUSTER and "ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value"
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-04-29 12:18:10
Subject: Re: Predicate locking

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