On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
>> I have a unloaded development server running 8.4b1 that is returning
>> from a 'select * from pg_locks' in around 5 ms. While the time itself
>> is not a big deal, I was curious and tested querying locks on a fairly
>> busy (200-500 tps sustained) running 8.2 on inferior hardware. This
>> returned (after an initial slower time) in well under 1 ms most of the
>> time. Is this noteworthy? What factors slow down best case
>> pg_lock_status() performance?
>
>> edit: I bet it's the max_locks_per_transaction parameter. I really
>> cranked it on the dev box during an experiment, to 16384.
>> testing...yup that's it. Are there any negative performance
>> side-effects that could result from (perhaps overly) cranked
>> max_locks_per_transaction?
>
> [squint...] AFAICS the only *direct* cost component in pg_lock_status
> is the number of locks actually held or awaited. If there's a
> noticeable component that depends on max_locks_per_transaction, it must
> be from hash_seq_search() iterating over empty hash buckets. Which is
> a mighty tight loop. What did you have max_connections set to?
16384 :D
(I was playing with a function that created a large number of tables/schemas)
merlin
