On 14.04.2011 23:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> There's one very low-hanging fruit here, though. I profiled the pgbench
>> case, with -M prepared, and found that like in Greg Smith's profile,
>> hash_seq_search pops up quite high in the list. Those calls are coming
>> from LockReleaseAll(), where we scan the local lock hash to find all
>> locks held. We specify the initial size of the local lock hash table as
>> 128, which is unnecessarily large for small queries like this. Reducing
>> it to 8 slashed the time spent in hash_seq_search().
>
>> I think we should make that hash table smaller. It won't buy much,
>> somewhere between 1-5 % in this test case, but it's very easy to do and
>> I don't see much downside, it's a local hash table so it will grow as
>> needed.
>
> 8 sounds awfully small. Can you even get as far as preparing the
> statements you intend to use without causing that to grow?
I added a debug print into the locking code, the pgbench test case uses
up to 6 locks. It needs those 6 locks at backend startup, for
initializing caches I guess. The queries after that need only 3 locks.
> I agree that 128 may be larger than necessary, but I don't think we
> should pessimize normal usage to gain a small fraction on trivial
> queries. I'd be happier with something like 16 or 32.
I'll change it to 16.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
