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

Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

From: Fredrik Estreen <estreen(at)algonet(dot)se>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, 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 06:21:54
Message-ID: 3C354A02.3060506@algonet.se (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-odbc
Tom Lane wrote:

>Fredrik Estreen <estreen(at)algonet(dot)se> writes:
>
>>I could run benchmarks on 7.1 if that would be interesting.
>>
>
>Yes, if you have the time to run the same test conditions on 7.1, it
>would be good.
>
>Also, per recent discussions, it would probably be better to try to keep
>the total number of transactions the same for all runs (maybe about
>10000 transactions total, so -t would vary between 10000 and 200 as
>-c ranges from 1 to 50).
>

I'll test my original series on 7.1 and also test the constant number of 
transactions this
weekend. A quick test with 20 transactions and 50 clients gave ca 25 tps 
with the latest
patch, but I'm not sure that point is good, other loads etc.

Regards
    Fredrik Estreen



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-04 06:22:33
Subject: Re: Is there any performance penalty using --with-ssl?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-01-04 05:53:44
Subject: RC1 time?

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2002-01-04 11:45:43
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-01-04 05:02:29
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

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