Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Date: 2001-09-29 05:37:08
Message-ID: 21557.1001741828@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> The following proposal should improve performance substantially when
> there is contention for a lock, but it creates no portability risks
> ...

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?)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vadim Mikheev 2001-09-29 08:45:52 Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Previous Message mlw 2001-09-29 04:28:43 Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal