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

Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

From: Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com>
To: "D(dot) Hageman" <dhageman(at)dracken(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Date: 2001-09-26 19:18:18
Message-ID: m38zf13gn9.fsf@belphigor.mcnaught.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"D. Hageman" <dhageman(at)dracken(dot)com> writes:

> The plan for the new spinlocks does look like it has some potential.  My 
> only comment in regards to permformance when we start looking at SMP 
> machines is ... it is my belief that getting a true threaded backend may 
> be the only way to get the full potential out of SMP machines.

Depends on what you mean.  For scaling well with many connections and
simultaneous queries, there's no reason IMHO that the current
process-per-backend model won't do, assuming the locking issues are
addressed. 

If you're talking about making a single query use multiple CPUs, then
yes, we're probably talking about a fundamental rewrite to use threads 
or some other mechanism.

-Doug
-- 
In a world of steel-eyed death, and men who are fighting to be warm,
Come in, she said, I'll give you shelter from the storm.    -Dylan

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mike RogersDate: 2001-09-26 19:46:16
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL / PHP Overrun Error
Previous:From: Neil PadgettDate: 2001-09-26 18:46:16
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

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