Re: PostgreSQL on multi-CPU systems
| От | darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: PostgreSQL on multi-CPU systems |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20010315125317.C3B921A68@druid.net обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL on multi-CPU systems (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL on multi-CPU systems
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thus spake Tom Lane
> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> > I have tested PostgreSQL with 2-4 CPU linux boxes. In summary, 2 CPU
> > was a big win, but 4 was not. I'm not sure where the bottle neck is
> > though.
>
> Our not-very-good implementation of spin locking (using select() to
> wait) might have something to do with this. Sometime soon I'd like to
> look at using POSIX semaphores where available, instead of spinlocks.
One thing I notice is that a single query can seem to block other queries,
at least to some extent. It makes me wonder if we effectively have a
single threaded system. In fact, I have some simple queries that if
I send a bunch at once, the first one can take 15 seconds while the
others zip through. Is this related to what you are talking about?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: