Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Date: 2002-01-04 04:55:03
Message-ID: 2992.1010120103@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> It still seems that the select() blocking method should be a loser.

> No question the new locking code is better. It just frustrates me we
> can't get something to show that.

pgbench may not be the setting in which that can be shown. It's I/O
bound to start with, and it exercises some of our other weak spots
(viz duplicate-key checking). So I'm not really surprised that it's
not showing any improvement from 7.1 to 7.2.

But yeah, it'd be nice to get some cross-version comparisons on other
test cases.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeffrey W. Baker 2002-01-04 04:59:11 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-01-04 04:46:04 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

Browse pgsql-odbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeffrey W. Baker 2002-01-04 04:59:11 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-01-04 04:46:04 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem