| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Віталій Тимчишин <tivv00(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>, Jignesh Shah <jkshah(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performance under contention |
| Date: | 2010-12-08 04:24:14 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTin=vVgkpYe2u_WBVHV59dgbe5QZ6PZ-nsT28Yb5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2010/12/7 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 2010/12/7 Віталій Тимчишин <tivv00(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> As far as I can see from the source, there is a lot of code executed under
>> the partition lock protection, like two hash searches (and possibly
>> allocations).
>
> Yeah, that was my concern, too, though Tom seems skeptical (perhaps
> rightly). And I'm not really sure why the PROCLOCKs need to be in a
> hash table anyway - if we know the PROC and LOCK we can surely look up
> the PROCLOCK pretty expensively by following the PROC SHM_QUEUE.
Err, pretty INexpensively.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vlad Arkhipov | 2010-12-08 08:50:05 | Re: Slow BLOBs restoring |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-08 04:23:48 | Re: Performance under contention |