> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > > OK, so now we know that while the new lock code handles the select(1)
> > > > problem better, we also know that on AIX the old select(1) code wasn't
> > > > as bad as we thought.
> > >
> > > It still seems that the select() blocking method should be a loser.
> >
> > No question the new locking code is better.  It just frustrates me we
> > can't get something to show that.
> 
> Even though I haven't completed controlled benchmarks yet, 7.2b4 was using
> all of my CPU time, whereas a patched version is using around half of CPU
> time, all in user space.
> 
> I think not pissing away all our time in the scheduler is a big
> improvement!

Yes, the new patch is clearly better than 7.2b4.  We are really hoping
to see the patched version beat 7.1.

-- 
  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

• Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem at 2002-01-04 04:59:11 from Jeffrey W. Baker

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2002-01-04 05:34:53
	Subject: Re: More problem with scripts
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2002-01-04 04:59:42
	Subject: Re: shmctl portability problem

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:	From: Fredrik Estreen	Date: 2002-01-04 06:21:54
	Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:	From: Jeffrey W. Baker	Date: 2002-01-04 04:59:11
	Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem