| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Performance TODO items |
| Date: | 2001-07-30 18:17:44 |
| Message-ID: | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E320166FB@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > We could use POSIX spinlocks/semaphores now but we
> > > don't because of performance, right?
> >
> > No. As long as no one proved with test that mutexes are bad for
> > performance...
> > Funny, such test would require ~ 1 day of work.
>
> Good question. I know the number of function calls to spinlock stuff
> is huge. Seems real semaphores may be a big win on multi-cpu boxes.
Ok, being tired of endless discussions I'll try to use mutexes instead
of spinlocks and run pgbench on my Solaris WS 10 and E4500 (4 CPU) boxes.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-30 18:22:30 | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-30 18:14:18 | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |