Re: Using Threads?
От | Dan Lyke |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Using Threads? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 14892.6919.336659.41711@wynand.flutterby.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Using Threads? (Adam Haberlach <adam@newsnipple.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Using Threads?
Re: Using Threads? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Adam Haberlach writes: > Typically (on a well-written OS, at least), the spawning of a thread > is much cheaper then the creation of a new process (via fork()). This would be well worth testing on some representative sample systems. Within the past year and a half at one of my gigs some coworkers did tests on various platforms (Irix, Solaris, a few variations of Linux and *BSDs) and concluded that in fact the threads implementations were often *slower* than using processes for moving and distributing the sorts of data that they were playing with. With copy-on-write and interprocess pipes that are roughly equivalent to memcpy() speeds it was determined for that application that the best way to split up tasks was fork()ing and dup(). As always, your mileage will vary, but the one thing that consistently amazes me on the Un*x like operating systems is that usually the programmatically simplest way to implement something has been optimized all to heck. A lesson that comes hard to those of us who grew up on MS systems. Dan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: