Re: Query regarding postgres lock contention - Followup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: Query regarding postgres lock contention - Followup
Date
Msg-id 4E8C521F0200002500041AE3@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Query regarding postgres lock contention - Followup  (Hamza Bin Sohail <hsohail@purdue.edu>)
Responses Re: Query regarding postgres lock contention - Followup
List pgsql-hackers
Hamza Bin Sohail <hsohail@purdue.edu> wrote:
> My postgres version is 8.3.7
Why such an old version?  Why exclude the available bug fixes?
http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
>> I am aware that lock contention can be checked with lockstat (and
>> with pg_locks ? ) but I wanted to know if someone can tell me how
>> much contention there would be for this database in a 16-core
>> system vs a 4-core system. I just need a rough idea.
How many database connections will be used?  If more than about
twice the number of cores, you should probably be going through a
transaction-based connection pool.
With 16 cores, even with a properly configured connection pool, you
will probably be on the edge of where spinlock contention starts
eating significant CPU time.  With enough system RAM and proper
tuning the hit should be fairly minor, I think.  It really gets bad
at 32 cores, although that is being improved for next year's 9.2
release.
-Kevin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kohei KaiGai
Date:
Subject: Re: [v9.2] DROP statement reworks
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Query regarding postgres lock contention - Followup