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

Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: 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: 2002-01-05 01:44:17
Message-ID: 8865.1010195057@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-odbc
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> BTW, could you run the test with changing the number of CPUs?

I'm not sure how to do that (and I don't have root on that machine,
so probably couldn't do it myself anyway).  Maybe I can arrange
something with the admins next week.

BTW, I am currently getting some interesting results from adjusting
SPINS_PER_DELAY in s_lock.c.  Will post results when I finish the
set of test runs.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2002-01-05 01:59:32
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item
Previous:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2002-01-05 01:32:29
Subject: Re: Undocumented feature costs a lot of performance in COPY

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2002-01-05 17:54:29
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2002-01-05 01:25:32
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

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