| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Date: | 2009-05-18 15:07:59 |
| Message-ID: | 1242659279.14551.7.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 20:25 +0200, Dimitri wrote:
> # lwlock_wait_8.4.d `pgrep -n postgres`
> Lock Id Mode Combined Time (ns)
> FirstLockMgrLock Exclusive 803700
> BufFreelistLock Exclusive 3001600
> FirstLockMgrLock Shared 4586600
> FirstBufMappingLock Exclusive 6283900
> FirstBufMappingLock Shared 21792900
I've published two patches to -Hackers to see if we can improve the read
only numbers on 32+ cores.
Try shared_buffer_partitions = 256
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-05-18 15:10:20 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Previous Message | David Wilson | 2009-05-15 01:21:44 | Re: superlative missuse |