Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Sergey Koposov
Subject Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile
Date
Msg-id alpine.LRH.2.02.1205311749500.6351@calx046.ast.cam.ac.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Robert Haas wrote:

> Oh, ho.  So from this we can see that the problem is that we're
> getting huge amounts of spinlock contention when pinning and unpinning
> index pages.
>
> It would be nice to have a self-contained reproducible test case for
> this, so that we could experiment with it on other systems.

I have created it a few days ago:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-05/msg01143.php

It is still valid. And I'm using exactly it to test. The only thing to 
change is to create a two-col index and drop another index.
The scripts are precisely the ones I'm using now.

The problem is that in order to see a really big slowdown (10 times slower 
than a single thread) I've had to raise the buffers to 48g but it was 
slow for smaller shared buffer settings as well.

But I'm not sure how sensitive the test is to the hardware.

Cheers,    S

*****************************************************
Sergey E. Koposov,  PhD, Research Associate
Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge 
Madingley road, CB3 0HA, Cambridge, UK Tel: +44-1223-337-551
Web: http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~koposov/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: hot standby PSQL 9.1 Windows 2008 Servers
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Figuring out shared buffer pressure