Re: Fw: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multipleparts -- follow-up

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Andres Freund
Тема Re: Fw: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multipleparts -- follow-up
Дата
Msg-id 20170921205731.omxufnitbcp37gsb@alap3.anarazel.de
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Fw: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts --follow-up  ("Jim Van Fleet" <vanfleet@us.ibm.com>)
Ответы Re: Fw: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts --follow-up  ("Jim Van Fleet" <vanfleet@us.ibm.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 2017-09-21 15:51:54 -0500, Jim Van Fleet wrote:
> Not to beat on a dead horse, or anything, but this fix was frowned upon 
> because in one environment (one socket) it was 6% down and over 15% up in 
> the right environment (two sockets).

> So, why not add a configuration parameter which specifies the number of 
> parts? Default is 1 which would be "exactly" the same as no parts and 
> hence no degradation in the single socket environment -- and with 2, you 
> get some positive performance.

Several reasons:

- You'd either add a bunch of branches into a performance critical parts, or you'd add a compile time flag, which most
peoplewould be unable to toggle.
 
- It'd be something hard to tune, because even on multi-socket machines it'll be highly load dependant. E.g. workloads
thatlargely are bottlenecked in a single backend / few backends will probably regress as well.
 

FWIW, you started a new thread with this message, that doesn't seem
helpful?

Greetings,

Andres Freund


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] CREATE COLLATION does not sanitize ICU's BCP 47language tags. Should it?
Следующее
От: Andrew Dunstan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] visual studio 2017 build support