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

Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Date: 2001-09-29 05:37:08
Message-ID: 21557.1001741828@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> The following proposal should improve performance substantially when
> there is contention for a lock, but it creates no portability risks
> ...

I have committed changes to implement this proposal.  I'm not seeing
any significant performance difference on pgbench on my single-CPU
system ... but pgbench is I/O bound anyway on this hardware, so that's
not very surprising.  I'll be interested to see what other people
observe.  (Tatsuo, care to rerun that 1000-client test?)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Vadim MikheevDate: 2001-09-29 08:45:52
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Previous:From: mlwDate: 2001-09-29 04:28:43
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

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