From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Using POSIX mutex-es |
Date: | 2001-09-06 16:51:15 |
Message-ID: | 200109061651.f86GpFs02057@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Added to TODO.detail/performance.
> 1. Just changed
> TAS(lock) to pthread_mutex_trylock(lock)
> S_LOCK(lock) to pthread_mutex_lock(lock)
> S_UNLOCK(lock) to pthread_mutex_unlock(lock)
> (and S_INIT_LOCK to share mutex-es between processes).
>
> 2. pgbench was initialized with scale 10.
> SUN WS 10 (512Mb), Solaris 2.6 (I'm unable to test on E4500 -:()
> -B 16384, wal_files 8, wal_buffers 256,
> checkpoint_segments 64, checkpoint_timeout 3600
> 50 clients x 100 transactions
> (after initialization DB dir was saved and before each test
> copyed back and vacuum-ed).
>
> 3. No difference.
> Mutex version maybe 0.5-1 % faster (eg: 37.264238 tps vs 37.083339 tps).
>
> So - no gain, but no performance loss "from using pthread library"
> (I've also run tests with 1 client), at least on Solaris.
>
> And so - looks like we can use POSIX mutex-es and conditional variables
> (not semaphores; man pthread_cond_wait) and should implement light lmgr,
> probably with priority locking.
>
> Vadim
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>
--
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-09-06 16:54:59 | Re: Re: What needs to be done? |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2001-09-06 16:25:19 | Re: CVS access |