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

Re: Dual-CPU slower then Single under HP?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Dual-CPU slower then Single under HP?
Date: 2001-06-06 18:00:38
Message-ID: 3283.991850438@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> 	The 4m:30s is running one process for 100K inserts ... with two
> CPUs/processes, it increases the time to process by almost 40% ... ?

Do you mean two processes inserting into the same table?

I committed some changes recently that reduce the amount of contention
involved in that scenario, but it's not released yet.

Another fairly likely issue is the not-very-good implementation of
spinlocks.  We've talked about finding a way other than select() to
block on a spinlock, but no one's done anything about it yet...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-06 18:03:28
Subject: Re: elog(NOIND)?
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-06-06 17:28:01
Subject: elog(NOIND)?

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