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

Re: experimental: replace s_lock spinlock code with pthread_mutex on linux

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de>, 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: experimental: replace s_lock spinlock code with pthread_mutex on linux
Date: 2012-06-28 15:29:10
Message-ID: CA+TgmobwvB7GxxY=LZZALFwH8m8jgfzMuD-aYRPgxU0=w0pTeA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Also, 20 transactions per connection is not enough of a run to make
> any evaluation on.

FWIW, I kicked off a looong benchmarking run on this a couple of days
ago on the IBM POWER7 box, testing pgbench -S, regular pgbench, and
pgbench --unlogged-tables at various client counts with and without
the patch; three half-hour test runs for each test configuration.  It
should be done tonight and I will post the results once they're in.

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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Florian PflugDate: 2012-06-28 15:34:13
Subject: Re: [v9.3] Row-Level Security
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-06-28 15:29:09
Subject: Re: [v9.3] Row-Level Security

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