Hans-J�rgen Sch�nig wrote:
> > But the snapshots only are grabbing the xids from each proc, right?
> > Doesn't seem that would take very long.
> >
> > If this is the bottleneck, maybe we need a shared proc lock.
> >
>
>
> I had a hard day testing and verifying this kind of stuff. We have run
> several hundred benchmarks at the customer using many different
> settings. SERIALIZABLE was the key to high-performance. I have run
> dozens of different benchmarks today (cursors, simple selects,
> concurrent stuff, ...). I have not found a difference. I have no idea
> why the customer's system was so much faster in SERIALIZABLE mode. They
> use a native C++ implementation of the FE/BE protocol but as far as I
> have seen their database layer does not care about transaction isolation
> too much.
They do the backend protocol using a custom implementation. Why would
they do that?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
