Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look?
Date
Msg-id 1185180668.4284.149.camel@ebony.site
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look?
List pgsql-performance
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 16:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM> writes:
> > What its saying is that there are holds/waits in trying to get locks
> > which are locked at Solaris user library levels called from the
> > postgresql functions:
> > For example both the following functions are hitting on the same mutex
> > lock  0x10059e280  in Solaris Library call:
> > postgres`AllocSetDelete+0x98
> > postgres`AllocSetAlloc+0x1c4
>
> That's a perfect example of the sort of useless overhead that I was
> complaining of just now in pgsql-patches.  Having malloc/free use
> an internal mutex is necessary in multi-threaded programs, but the
> backend isn't multi-threaded.  And yet, apparently you can't turn
> that off in Solaris.
>
> (Fortunately, the palloc layer is probably insulating us from malloc's
> performance enough that this isn't a huge deal.  But it's annoying.)

There is one thing that the palloc layer doesn't handle: EState. All
other memory contexts have a very well chosen initial allocation that
prevents mallocs during low-medium complexity OLTP workloads.

EState is about 8300 bytes, so just above the large allocation limit.
This means that every time we request an EState, i.e. at least once per
statement we need to malloc() and then later free().

Would it be worth a special case in the palloc system to avoid having to
repeatedly issue external memory allocation calls?

--
  Simon Riggs
  EnterpriseDB  http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Adam Tauno Williams
Date:
Subject: Re: Simple select hangs while CPU close to 100%
Next
From: Michael Stone
Date:
Subject: Re: insert vs select into performance