Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance
Date: 2010-10-07 20:31:36
Message-ID: AANLkTikKaNhHHimcO1XPdwvTCa-HYH4UJAGwgHjTKaQM@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> perhaps it would be possible by, say, increasing the number of
>> lock partitions by 8x.  It would be nice to segregate these issues
>> though, because using pread/pwrite is probably a lot less work
>> than rewriting our lock manager.
>
> You mean easier than changing this 4 to a 7?:
>
> #define LOG2_NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS  4
>
> Or am I missing something?

Right. They did something more complicated (and, I think, better)
than that, but that change by itself might be enough to ameliorate the
lock contention enough to see the lsek() issue.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2010-10-07 20:56:14 Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?)
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2010-10-07 19:50:32 Timeout and Synch Rep

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-10-07 20:40:13 Re: Odd behaviour with redundant CREATE statement
Previous Message Aaron Turner 2010-10-07 20:03:47 Re: large dataset with write vs read clients