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

Re: Update on the spinlock->pthread_mutex patch experimental: replace s_lock spinlock code with pthread_mutex on linux

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Update on the spinlock->pthread_mutex patch experimental: replace s_lock spinlock code with pthread_mutex on linux
Date: 2012-06-29 17:11:51
Message-ID: 201206291911.51506.andres@2ndquadrant.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Friday, June 29, 2012 07:07:11 PM Nils Goroll wrote:
> > Also, 20 transactions per connection is not enough of a run to make
> > any evaluation on.
> 
> As you can see I've repeated the tests 10 times. I've tested slight
> variations as mentioned above, so I was looking for quick results with
> acceptable variation.
Running only 20 transactions is still meaningless. Quite often that will means 
that no backends run concurrently because the starting up takes longer than to 
process those 20 transactions. You need at the very, very least 10s. Check out 
-T.

Andres
-- 
 Andres Freund	                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Nils GorollDate: 2012-06-29 17:14:40
Subject: Re: Update on the spinlock->pthread_mutex patch experimental: replace s_lock spinlock code with pthread_mutex on linux
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2012-06-29 17:08:09
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

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