Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20050912033706.GH6026@ns.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> Er, which (or both) of the two patches did you apply here? > > > Applied both, sorry that wasn't clear. > > Thanks. If you've got the time, could you try the two patches > separately and see what you get? Sure. CVS Head: N, runtime: 1 31s 2 47s 4 86s 8 159s With just slock-no-cmpb.patch: N, runtime: 1 32s 2 39s 4 82s 8 167s With just spin-delay.patch N, runtime: 1 32s 2 52s 4 94s 8 164s With both: N, runtime: 1 32s 2 53s 4 90s 8 169s Hope that helps, Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: