From: | "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
Date: | 2002-01-04 04:59:11 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0201032057460.26288-100000@windmill.gghcwest.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > OK, so now we know that while the new lock code handles the select(1)
> > > problem better, we also know that on AIX the old select(1) code wasn't
> > > as bad as we thought.
> >
> > It still seems that the select() blocking method should be a loser.
>
> No question the new locking code is better. It just frustrates me we
> can't get something to show that.
Even though I haven't completed controlled benchmarks yet, 7.2b4 was using
all of my CPU time, whereas a patched version is using around half of CPU
time, all in user space.
I think not pissing away all our time in the scheduler is a big
improvement!
-jwb
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-04 04:59:42 | Re: shmctl portability problem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-04 04:55:03 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-04 05:02:29 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-04 04:55:03 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |