From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Ashkil Dighin <ashkildighin76(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Lock contention high |
Date: | 2021-10-27 22:22:01 |
Message-ID: | 2A5AB443-64E5-42DC-936A-C521ADD6B1BD@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi,
On October 27, 2021 2:44:56 PM PDT, Ashkil Dighin <ashkildighin76(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>Hi,
>Yes, lock contention reduced with postgresqlv14.
>Lock acquire reduced 18% to 10%
>10.49 %postgres postgres [.] LWLockAcquire
>5.09% postgres postgres [.] _bt_compare
>
>Is lock contention can be reduced to 0-3%?
Probably not, or at least not easily. Because of the atomic instructions the locking also includes some other costs (e.g. cache misses, serializing store buffers,...).
There's a good bit we can do to increase the cache efficiency around buffer headers, but it won't get us quite that low I'd guess.
>On pg-stat-activity shown LwLock as “BufferCounter” and “WalInsert”
Without knowing what proportion they have to each and to non-waiting backends that unfortunately doesn't help that much..
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tim Slechta | 2021-10-28 02:31:00 | Views don't seem to use indexes? |
Previous Message | Ashkil Dighin | 2021-10-27 21:44:56 | Re: Lock contention high |