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

Re: Performance TODO items

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance TODO items
Date: 2001-09-06 00:03:26
Message-ID: 200109060003.f8603Qr17504@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > > > We could use POSIX spinlocks/semaphores now but we
> > > > don't because of performance, right?
> > > 
> > > No. As long as no one proved with test that mutexes are bad for
> > > performance...
> > > Funny, such test would require ~ 1 day of work.
> > 
> > Good question. I know the number of function calls to spinlock stuff
> > is huge. Seems real semaphores may be a big win on multi-cpu boxes.
> 
> Ok, being tired of endless discussions I'll try to use mutexes instead
> of spinlocks and run pgbench on my Solaris WS 10 and E4500 (4 CPU) boxes.

I have updated the TODO list with:

    * Improve spinlock code 
        o use SysV semaphores or queue of backends waiting on the lock
        o wakeup sleeper or sleep for less than one clock tick 
        o spin for lock on multi-cpu machines, yield on single cpu machines
        o read/write locks

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mike CianfloneDate: 2001-09-06 00:29:58
Subject: Is there a problem running vacuum in the middle of a transaction?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-09-05 21:24:43
Subject: Re: RAISE <level> <expr> <params>: state of play and request

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