Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?
От | Shridhar Daithankar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200304131159.59075.shridhar_daithankar@nospam.persistent.co.in обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? (Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sunday 13 April 2003 09:47, you wrote: > Even if you'd gain as much as a 10% speed improvement by using threads > to handle concurrent sorts and such instead of processes (an > improvement that is likely to be very difficult to achieve), I think > you're still going to be better off using processes. To justify the > dangers of using threads, you'd need to see something like a factor of > two or more gain in overall performance, and I don't see how that's > going to be possible even on systems with very heavyweight processes. I couldn't agree more. There is just a corner case to justify threads. Looking around, it would be a fair assumption that on any platforms threads are at least as fast as processes. So using threads it is guarenteed that "sub-work" will be lot more faster. Of course that does not justify threads even in 5% of cases. So again, no reason to use threads for sort etc. However the subprocesses used should be simple enough. A process as heavy as a full database connection might not be too good. Shridhar
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: