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

RE: Performance TODO items

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Performance TODO items
Date: 2001-07-30 18:17:44
Message-ID: 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E320166FB@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > > We could use POSIX spinlocks/semaphores now but we
> > > don't because of performance, right?
> > 
> > No. As long as no one proved with test that mutexes are bad for
> > performance...
> > Funny, such test would require ~ 1 day of work.
> 
> Good question. I know the number of function calls to spinlock stuff
> is huge. Seems real semaphores may be a big win on multi-cpu boxes.

Ok, being tired of endless discussions I'll try to use mutexes instead
of spinlocks and run pgbench on my Solaris WS 10 and E4500 (4 CPU) boxes.

Vadim

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-07-30 18:22:30
Subject: Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison"
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-07-30 18:14:18
Subject: Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison"

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