Re: mosbench revisited - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: mosbench revisited
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HM5y0tx+-e4U+OkpQRPKgtobnhx37OUgi93anK1WvVSUQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to mosbench revisited  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: mosbench revisited
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>  I'm kind of interested by the
> result, actually, as I had feared that the spinlock protecting
> ProcArrayLock was going to be a bigger problem sooner.

I think this depends on how many connections you have. If you try to
scale up your benchmark by having hundreds of connections then get
O(n^2) increase in the time spent with the procarray locked. It sounds
like they pinned the number of connections at the number of cores they
had. That makes sense if they're intentionally driving a cpu-bound
benchmark but it means they won't run into this problem.

--
greg


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: synchronized snapshots
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we have an optional limit on the recursion depth of recursive CTEs?