Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

From: Fredrik Estreen <estreen(at)algonet(dot)se>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, 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 06:21:54
Message-ID: 3C354A02.3060506@algonet.se
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc

Tom Lane wrote:

>Fredrik Estreen <estreen(at)algonet(dot)se> writes:
>
>>I could run benchmarks on 7.1 if that would be interesting.
>>
>
>Yes, if you have the time to run the same test conditions on 7.1, it
>would be good.
>
>Also, per recent discussions, it would probably be better to try to keep
>the total number of transactions the same for all runs (maybe about
>10000 transactions total, so -t would vary between 10000 and 200 as
>-c ranges from 1 to 50).
>

I'll test my original series on 7.1 and also test the constant number of
transactions this
weekend. A quick test with 20 transactions and 50 clients gave ca 25 tps
with the latest
patch, but I'm not sure that point is good, other loads etc.

Regards
Fredrik Estreen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-01-04 06:22:33 Re: Is there any performance penalty using --with-ssl?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-01-04 05:53:44 RC1 time?

Browse pgsql-odbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2002-01-04 11:45:43 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-01-04 05:02:29 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem