Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Performance under contention

From: Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jignesh Shah <jkshah(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance under contention
Date: 2010-12-07 18:08:06
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 7 December 2010 18:37, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Jignesh Shah <jkshah(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> That's exactly what I concluded when I was doing the sysbench simple
>> read-only test. I had also tried with different lock partitions and it
>> did not help since they all go after the same table. I think one way
>> to kind of avoid the problem on the same table is to do more granular
>> locking (Maybe at page level instead of table level). But then I dont
>> really understand on how to even create a prototype related to this
>> one. If you can help create a prototype then I can test it out with my
>> setup and see if it helps us to catch up with other guys out there.
> We're trying to lock the table against a concurrent DROP or schema
> change, so locking only part of it doesn't really work.  I don't
> really see any way to avoid needing some kind of a lock here; the
> trick is how to take it quickly.  The main obstacle to making this
> faster is that the deadlock detector needs to be able to obtain enough
> information to break cycles, which means we've got to record in shared
> memory not only the locks that are granted but who has them.

I'm not very familiar with PostgreSQL code but if we're
brainstorming... if you're only trying to protect against a small
number of expensive operations (like DROP, etc.) that don't really
happen often, wouldn't an atomic reference counter be good enough for
the purpose (e.g. the expensive operations would spin-wait until the
counter is 0)?

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-12-07 18:09:08
Subject: Re: Performance under contention
Previous:From: Dave CrookeDate: 2010-12-07 18:00:58
Subject: Re: Performance under contention

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group