Re: Reducing Transaction Start/End Contention

Just started a blog session on my findings running Postgres 8.3(beta)
on a mid range Sun Fire server. Second entry is about the time lost
on LWLock handling. When concurrency increases you can see the
ProcArrayLock wait queue to start and explode.

http://blogs.sun.com/paulvandenbogaard/entry/
leight_weight_lock_contention

I will add more posts on all the other LWlock findings and the
instrumentation method being used. Unfortunately a high priority
project popped up I need to focus on. So please be patient. Hope to
finish this in the first week of april.

Thanks,
Paul

On 13-mrt-2008, at 16:56, Tom Lane wrote:

> Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> writes:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> How about this wording:
>>> "Review Simon's claims to improve performance
>
>> What sort of evidence is usually compelling? It seems to me that this
>> sort of change only benefits configurations with dozens or more
>> CPUs/cores?
>
> The main point in my mind was that that analysis was based on the code
> as it then stood. Florian's work to reduce ProcArrayLock contention
> might have invalidated some or all of the ideas. So it needs a fresh
> look.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
Paul van den Bogaard
Paul(dot)vandenBogaard(at)sun(dot)com
ISV-E -- ISV Engineering, Opensource Engineering group

Sun Microsystems, Inc phone: +31
334 515 918
Saturnus 1
extentsion: x (70)15918
3824 ME Amersfoort mobile: +31
651 913 354
The Netherlands
fax: +31 334 515 001