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

Re: Any better plan for this query?..

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 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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 
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2009-05-18 15:10:20
Subject: Re: Any better plan for this query?..
Previous:From: David WilsonDate: 2009-05-15 01:21:44
Subject: Re: superlative missuse

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group