Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

OK, testing now with 1000 backends and 2000 buffers. Will report.

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > No scale factor, as I illustrated from the initialization command I
> > used. Standard buffers too. Let me know what values I should use for
> > testing.
>
> Scale factor has to be >= max number of clients you use, else you're
> just measuring serialization on the "branch" rows.
>
> I think the default NBuffers (64) is too low to give meaningful
> performance numbers, too. I've been thinking that maybe we should
> raise it to 1000 or so by default. This would trigger startup failures
> on platforms with small SHMMAX, but we could tell people to use -B until
> they get around to fixing their kernel settings. It's been a long time
> since we fit into a 1-MB shared memory segment at the default settings
> anyway, so maybe it's time to select somewhat-realistic defaults.
> What we have now is neither very useful nor the lowest common
> denominator...
>
> regards, tom lane
>

--
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