Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Ivan Voras
Subject Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance
Date
Msg-id i8itbn$kre$1@dough.gmane.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance  (Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql@jamponi.net>)
Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
On 10/04/10 20:49, Josh Berkus wrote:

>> The other major bottleneck they ran into was a kernel one: reading from
>> the heap file requires a couple lseek operations, and Linux acquires a
>> mutex on the inode to do that. The proper place to fix this is
>> certainly in the kernel but it may be possible to work around in
>> Postgres.
>
> Or we could complain to Kernel.org.  They've been fairly responsive in
> the past.  Too bad this didn't get posted earlier; I just got back from
> LinuxCon.
>
> So you know someone who can speak technically to this issue? I can put
> them in touch with the Linux geeks in charge of that part of the kernel
> code.

Hmmm... lseek? As in "lseek() then read() or write()" idiom? It AFAIK
cannot be fixed since you're modifying the global "strean position"
variable and something has got to lock that.

OTOH, pread() / pwrite() don't have to do that.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: Runtime dependency from size of a bytea field
Next
From: Jon Nelson
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance