Re: spinlock->pthread_mutex : first results with Jeff's pgbench+plsql
From:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To:
Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de>
Cc:
Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject:
Re: spinlock->pthread_mutex : first results with Jeff's pgbench+plsql
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de> wrote:
> Please note that this is with 3.1.7. I understand that many scalability
> improvements have been implemented in later versions and it would have to be
> expected that using less synchronization points will imply that spinlock
> overhead is less. In other words, the results _should_ look less drastic with
> later versions.
3.1.7?
A major scalability bottleneck caused by spinlock contention was fixed
in 9.2 - see commit b4fbe392f8ff6ff1a66b488eb7197eef9e1770a4. I'm not
sure that it's very meaningful to do performance testing on versions
that are known to be out of date.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
