| From: | "Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |
| Date: | 2001-09-29 08:45:52 |
| Message-ID: | 007401c148c3$2645dd60$4e79583f@home |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I have committed changes to implement this proposal. I'm not seeing
> any significant performance difference on pgbench on my single-CPU
> system ... but pgbench is I/O bound anyway on this hardware, so that's
> not very surprising. I'll be interested to see what other people
> observe. (Tatsuo, care to rerun that 1000-client test?)
What is your system? CPU, memory, IDE/SCSI, OS?
Scaling factor and # of clients?
BTW1 - shouldn't we rewrite pgbench to use threads instead of
"libpq async queries"? At least as option. I'd say that with 1000
clients current pgbench implementation is very poor.
BTW2 - shouldn't we learn if there are really portability/performance
issues in using POSIX mutex-es (and cond. variables) in place of
TAS (and SysV semaphores)?
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chamanya | 2001-09-29 13:18:56 | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-09-29 05:37:08 | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |