| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing contention for the LockMgrLock |
| Date: | 2005-12-08 17:36:30 |
| Message-ID: | 12123.1134063390@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Hm, so hypothetically an insert or update on a table with 4 indexes which have
> been split into 4 partitions would need to touch each partition?
That would be the best case, actually, that each heavily-used lock ends
up in a different partition. As Simon points out, we have no way to
guarantee that.
> Would that defeat the benefits of the partitioning? Or enhance it?
It'd be what you'd want, because it would reduce the odds that two
processes doing this concurrently would need to touch the same partition
at the same time.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2005-12-08 17:49:48 | Re: [PATCHES] Inherited Constraints |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2005-12-08 17:35:25 | Re: generalizing the planner knobs |