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

Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Date: 2001-09-29 18:37:49
Message-ID: 200109291837.f8TIbn600131@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> I wrote:
> > The following proposal should improve performance substantially when
> > there is contention for a lock, but it creates no portability risks
> > ...
> 
> 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?)

I ran with 20 clients:

	$ pgbench -i test
	$ pgbench -c 20 -t 100 test

and see no difference in tps performance between the two lock
implementations.  I have a Dual PIII 550MHz i386 BSD/OS machine with
SCSI disks.

-- 
  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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-09-29 18:38:29
Subject: Re: Pre-forking backend
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-09-29 18:36:59
Subject: Re: Pre-forking backend

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