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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Date
Msg-id 21557.1001741828@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Spinlock performance improvement proposal  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
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?)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: multibyte performance
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: O_DIRECT and performance