Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts
| От | Jim Van Fleet |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | OF5861AEF0.509D5D54-ON86258138.0061478F-86258138.0073FED2@notes.na.collabserv.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multipleparts
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote on 06/07/2017 12:12:02 PM:
> > OK -- would love the feedback and any suggestions on how to mitigate the low
> > end problems.
>
> Did you intend to attach a patch?
Yes I do -- tomorrow or Thursday -- needs a little cleaning up ...
> > Sokolov Yura has a patch which, to me, looks good for pgbench rw
> > performance. Does not do so well with hammerdb (about the same as base) on
> > single socket and two socket.
>
> Any idea why? I think we will have to understand *why* certain things
> help in some situations and not others, not just *that* they do, in
> order to come up with a good solution to this problem.
Looking at the data now -- LWLockAquire philosophy is different -- at first glance I would have guessed "about the same" as the base, but I can not yet explain why we have super pgbench rw performance and "the same" hammerdb performance.
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: