| From: | Metin Doslu <metin(at)citusdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers |
| Date: | 2013-12-05 09:33:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAL1dPcfJmYNaegTUVi9nDYZRBwr8F=dWUTcdUg9Y1P1gO-nYWw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
> Is your workload bigger than RAM?
RAM is bigger than workload (more than a couple of times).
> I think a good bit of the contention
> you're seeing in that listing is populating shared_buffers - and might
> actually vanish once you're halfway cached.
> From what I've seen so far the bigger problem than contention in the
> lwlocks itself, is the spinlock protecting the lwlocks...
Could you clarify a bit what do you mean by "halfway cached" and "spinlock
protecting the lwlocks".
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-05 09:42:26 | Re: Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-05 09:18:41 | Re: Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-05 09:42:26 | Re: Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-05 09:18:41 | Re: Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers |