Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
От | Vadim Mikheev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 007401c148c3$2645dd60$4e79583f@home обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Spinlock performance improvement proposal (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> I have committed changes to implement this proposal. I'm not seeing > any significant performance difference on pgbench on my single-CPU > system ... but pgbench is I/O bound anyway on this hardware, so that's > not very surprising. I'll be interested to see what other people > observe. (Tatsuo, care to rerun that 1000-client test?) What is your system? CPU, memory, IDE/SCSI, OS? Scaling factor and # of clients? BTW1 - shouldn't we rewrite pgbench to use threads instead of "libpq async queries"? At least as option. I'd say that with 1000 clients current pgbench implementation is very poor. BTW2 - shouldn't we learn if there are really portability/performance issues in using POSIX mutex-es (and cond. variables) in place of TAS (and SysV semaphores)? Vadim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: