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

Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

From: "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Date: 2002-01-04 04:59:11
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0201032057460.26288-100000@windmill.gghcwest.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-odbc

On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > OK, so now we know that while the new lock code handles the select(1)
> > > problem better, we also know that on AIX the old select(1) code wasn't
> > > as bad as we thought.
> >
> > It still seems that the select() blocking method should be a loser.
>
> No question the new locking code is better.  It just frustrates me we
> can't get something to show that.

Even though I haven't completed controlled benchmarks yet, 7.2b4 was using
all of my CPU time, whereas a patched version is using around half of CPU
time, all in user space.

I think not pissing away all our time in the scheduler is a big
improvement!

-jwb


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-01-04 04:59:42
Subject: Re: shmctl portability problem
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-04 04:55:03
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-01-04 05:02:29
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-04 04:55:03
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

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