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

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
Date: 2012-07-02 15:34:11
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa=gs_Dw9dfbPO8DP2kR3pTMN6UWeTWU4fRxvtZXsSJ8Q@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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that are known to be out of date.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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Nils GorollDate: 2012-07-02 15:38:08
Subject: Re: spinlock->pthread_mutex : first results with Jeff's pgbench+plsql
Previous:From: Nils GorollDate: 2012-07-02 15:26:05
Subject: spinlock->pthread_mutex : first results with Jeff's pgbench+plsql

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