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

Re: RES: Priority to a mission critical transaction

From: Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RES: Priority to a mission critical transaction
Date: 2006-11-29 13:25:57
Message-ID: 456D8A65.3080400@janestcapital.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-performance
Ron Mayer wrote:

>Before asking them to remove it, are we sure priority inversion
>is really a problem?
>
>I thought this paper: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bianca/icde04.pdf
>did a pretty good job at studying priority inversion on RDBMs's
>including PostgreSQL on various workloads (TCP-W and TCP-C) and
>found that the benefits of setting priorities vastly outweighed
>the penalties of priority inversion across all the databases and
>all the workloads they tested.
>
>  
>
I have the same question.  I've done some embedded real-time 
programming, so my innate reaction to priority inversions is that 
they're evil.  But, especially given priority inheritance, is there any 
situation where priority inversion provides *worse* performance than 
running everything at the same priority?  I can easily come up with 
situations where it devolves to that case- where all processes get 
promoted to the same high priority.  But I can't think of one where 
using priorities makes things worse, and I can think of plenty where it 
makes things better.

Brian


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Mark LewisDate: 2006-11-29 15:03:44
Subject: Re: RES: Priority to a mission critical transaction
Previous:From: Alessandro BarettaDate: 2006-11-29 11:31:55
Subject: NAMEDATALEN and performance

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Mark LewisDate: 2006-11-29 15:03:44
Subject: Re: RES: Priority to a mission critical transaction
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-11-29 12:48:41
Subject: Re: Integrating Replication into Core

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