| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: testing ProcArrayLock patches |
| Date: | 2011-11-18 19:36:59 |
| Message-ID: | 4EC65F7B020000250004324A@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> samples % image name symbol name
> 495463 3.6718 postgres hash_search_with_hash_value
When lines like these show up in the annotated version, I'm
impressed that we're still finding gains as big as we are:
44613 0.3306 : if (segp == NULL)
: hash_corrupted(hashp);
101910 0.7552 : keysize = hashp->keysize; /* ditto */
There goes over 1% of my server run time, right there!
Of course, these make no sense unless there is cache line
contention, which is why that area is bearing fruit.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-18 19:47:46 | Re: range_adjacent and discrete ranges |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-11-18 19:24:07 | Re: testing ProcArrayLock patches |