Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Date: 2005-09-12 03:17:51
Message-ID: 20050912031751.GG6026@ns.snowman.net
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:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > em64t, 2 proc + 2 HT, 3.4ghz, 4G, 2.6.12:
>
> > N, runtime: 1 31s 2 47s 4 86s 8 159s
>
> > N, runtime: 1 32s 2 53s 4 90s 8 169s
>
> Er, which (or both) of the two patches did you apply here?

Applied both, sorry that wasn't clear.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-09-12 03:20:41 Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2005-09-12 03:16:59 Re: Spinlocks, yet again: a new test case