Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance
Date
Msg-id 4CADC97A0200002500036662@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-performance
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner (Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov) wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> perhaps it would be possible by, say, increasing the number of
>>> lock partitions by 8x.

>> changing this 4 to a 7?:
>>
>> #define LOG2_NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS  4

> I'm pretty sure we were talking about the change described in the
> paper of moving to a system which uses atomic changes instead of
> spinlocks for certain locking situations..

Well, they also mentioned increasing the number of lock partitions
to reduce contention, and that seemed to be what Robert was talking
about in the quoted section.

Of course, that's not the *only* thing they did; it's just the point
which seemed to be under discussion just there.

-Kevin

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance
Next
From: Dan Harris
Date:
Subject: Re: large dataset with write vs read clients