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

Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeffrey W. BakerDate: 2002-01-04 04:59:11
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-01-04 04:46:04
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Jeffrey W. BakerDate: 2002-01-04 04:59:11
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-01-04 04:46:04
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

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