| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| Date: | 2002-01-05 01:25:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20020105102532G.t-ishii@sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
> The results are shown in the attached plot. Interesting, hmm?
> The "sweet spot" at 3 processes might be explained by assuming that
> pgbench itself chews up the fourth CPU.
To probe the theory, you could run pgbench on a different machine.
BTW, could you run the test with changing the number of CPUs? I'm
interested in how 7.2 is scale with # of processors.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-01-05 01:32:29 | Re: Undocumented feature costs a lot of performance in COPY |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-05 00:32:37 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-05 01:44:17 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-05 00:32:37 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |