Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200109291837.f8TIbn600131@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> I wrote: > > The following proposal should improve performance substantially when > > there is contention for a lock, but it creates no portability risks > > ... > > I have committed changes to implement this proposal. I'm not seeing > any significant performance difference on pgbench on my single-CPU > system ... but pgbench is I/O bound anyway on this hardware, so that's > not very surprising. I'll be interested to see what other people > observe. (Tatsuo, care to rerun that 1000-client test?) I ran with 20 clients: $ pgbench -i test$ pgbench -c 20 -t 100 test and see no difference in tps performance between the two lock implementations. I have a Dual PIII 550MHz i386 BSD/OS machine with SCSI disks. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: