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

Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2002-01-05 01:32:29
Subject: Re: Undocumented feature costs a lot of performance in COPY
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-01-05 00:32:37
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-05 01:44:17
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-01-05 00:32:37
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

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