Re: Query regarding postgres lock contention - Followup
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Query regarding postgres lock contention - Followup |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZa3TCTjFHioCtAp3vKSLNQ2U19G3wOyoEWecu9M8kRyA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Query regarding postgres lock contention - Followup ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Hamza Bin Sohail <hsohail@purdue.edu> wrote: > >> My postgres version is 8.3.7 > > Why such an old version? Why exclude the available bug fixes? > > http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning > >>> I am aware that lock contention can be checked with lockstat (and >>> with pg_locks ? ) but I wanted to know if someone can tell me how >>> much contention there would be for this database in a 16-core >>> system vs a 4-core system. I just need a rough idea. > > How many database connections will be used? If more than about > twice the number of cores, you should probably be going through a > transaction-based connection pool. > > With 16 cores, even with a properly configured connection pool, you > will probably be on the edge of where spinlock contention starts > eating significant CPU time. With enough system RAM and proper > tuning the hit should be fairly minor, I think. It really gets bad > at 32 cores, although that is being improved for next year's 9.2 > release. I think that on write-heavy workloads (like pgbench) we bottleneck on lightweight lock contention around 8 cores. :-( -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: