| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: spinlock->pthread_mutex : first results with Jeff's pgbench+plsql |
| Date: | 2012-07-02 15:34:11 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa=gs_Dw9dfbPO8DP2kR3pTMN6UWeTWU4fRxvtZXsSJ8Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de> wrote:
> Please note that this is with 3.1.7. I understand that many scalability
> improvements have been implemented in later versions and it would have to be
> expected that using less synchronization points will imply that spinlock
> overhead is less. In other words, the results _should_ look less drastic with
> later versions.
3.1.7?
A major scalability bottleneck caused by spinlock contention was fixed
in 9.2 - see commit b4fbe392f8ff6ff1a66b488eb7197eef9e1770a4. I'm not
sure that it's very meaningful to do performance testing on versions
that are known to be out of date.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nils Goroll | 2012-07-02 15:38:08 | Re: spinlock->pthread_mutex : first results with Jeff's pgbench+plsql |
| Previous Message | Nils Goroll | 2012-07-02 15:26:05 | spinlock->pthread_mutex : first results with Jeff's pgbench+plsql |