Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Vadim Mikheev
Subject Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Date
Msg-id 007401c148c3$2645dd60$4e79583f@home
Whole thread Raw
In response to Spinlock performance improvement proposal  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> 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?)

What is your system? CPU, memory, IDE/SCSI, OS?
Scaling factor and # of clients?

BTW1 - shouldn't we rewrite pgbench to use threads instead of
"libpq async queries"? At least as option. I'd say that with 1000
clients current pgbench implementation is very poor.

BTW2 - shouldn't we learn if there are really portability/performance
issues in using POSIX mutex-es (and cond. variables) in place of
TAS (and SysV semaphores)?

Vadim




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gunnar Rønning
Date:
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Next
From: Chamanya
Date:
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal