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

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Date
Msg-id 200109291837.f8TIbn600131@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 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 wrote:
> > The following proposal should improve performance substantially when
> > there is contention for a lock, but it creates no portability risks
> > ...
> 
> 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?)

I ran with 20 clients:
$ pgbench -i test$ pgbench -c 20 -t 100 test

and see no difference in tps performance between the two lock
implementations.  I have a Dual PIII 550MHz i386 BSD/OS machine with
SCSI disks.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal