| From: | "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| Date: | 2001-12-30 02:00:43 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0112291800180.31300-100000@windmill.gghcwest.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, here are the results on BSD/OS 4.2 on a 2-cpu system. The first is
> before the patch, the second after. Both average 14tps, so the patch
> has no negative effect on my system. Of course, it has no positive
> effect either. :-)
Actually it looks slighty worse with the patch. What about CPU usage?
-jwb
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-12-30 02:08:59 | Re: Latest datetime changes produce gcc complaints |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-12-30 01:50:48 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-12-30 02:13:36 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-12-30 01:50:48 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |