Re: PostgreSQL on multi-CPU systems

From: Thomas Graichen <news-list(dot)pgsql(dot)hackers(at)innominate(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL on multi-CPU systems
Date: 2001-03-13 07:24:20
Message-ID: news2mail-98khv4$uef$1@mate.bln.innominate.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> I have tested PostgreSQL with 2-4 CPU linux boxes. In summary, 2 CPU
>> was a big win, but 4 was not. I'm not sure where the bottle neck is
>> though.

> Our not-very-good implementation of spin locking (using select() to
> wait) might have something to do with this. Sometime soon I'd like to
> look at using POSIX semaphores where available, instead of spinlocks.

did anyone from here follow the discussion about postgresql on
smp machines on the linux kernel malinglist in the last days?
(just as an info)

t

--
thomas(dot)graichen(at)innominate(dot)com
innominate AG
the linux architects
tel: +49-30-308806-13 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karel Zak 2001-03-13 07:30:59 Re: Internationalized error messages
Previous Message Giles Lean 2001-03-13 06:47:33 Re: RE: xlog checkpoint depends on sync() ... seems uns afe