From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
Date: | 2002-01-04 04:55:03 |
Message-ID: | 2992.1010120103@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> 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.
pgbench may not be the setting in which that can be shown. It's I/O
bound to start with, and it exercises some of our other weak spots
(viz duplicate-key checking). So I'm not really surprised that it's
not showing any improvement from 7.1 to 7.2.
But yeah, it'd be nice to get some cross-version comparisons on other
test cases.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeffrey W. Baker | 2002-01-04 04:59:11 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-04 04:46:04 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeffrey W. Baker | 2002-01-04 04:59:11 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-04 04:46:04 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |