| From: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>, Flavio Henrique Araque Gurgel <flavio(at)4linux(dot)com(dot)br>, Fabrix <fabrixio1(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Scalability in postgres |
| Date: | 2009-06-05 17:15:28 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.GSO.2.01.0906051309350.4737@westnet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Mark Mielke wrote:
> At it's very simplest, this is the difference between "wake one thread"
> (which is then responsible for waking the next thread) vs "wake all
> threads"....Any system which actually wakes all threads will probably
> exhibit scaling limitations.
The prototype patch we got from Jignesh improved his specific workload by
waking more waiting processes than were being notified in the current
code. The bottleneck that's been best examined so far at high client
counts is not because of too much waking, it's caused by not enough.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Schnabel | 2009-06-05 19:01:40 | Re: Why is my stats collector so busy? |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-06-05 17:02:07 | Re: Scalability in postgres |