RE: Performance TODO items

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Mikheev, Vadim
Тема RE: Performance TODO items
Дата
Msg-id 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E320166FA@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Performance TODO items  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Performance TODO items  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
> > >     * Order duplicate index entries by tid
> > 
> > In other words - add tid to index key: very old idea.
> 
> I was thinking during index creation, it would be nice to
> order them by tid, but not do lots of work to keep it that way.

I hear this "not do lots of work" so often from you -:)
Days of simplicity are gone, Bruce. To continue, this project
requires more and more complex solutions.

> > >     * Add queue of backends waiting for spinlock
> > 
> > We shouldn't mix two different approaches for different
> > kinds of short-time internal locks - in one cases we need in
> > light lmgr (when we're going to keep lock long enough, eg for IO)
> > and in another cases we'd better to proceed with POSIX' mutex-es
> > or semaphores instead of spinlocks. Queueing backends waiting
> > for spinlock sounds like nonsense - how are you going to protect
> > such queue? With spinlocks? -:)
> 
> Yes, I guess so but hopefully we can spin waiting for the queue lock
> rather than sleep. We could use POSIX spinlocks/semaphores now but we
> don't because of performance, right?

No. As long as no one proved with test that mutexes are bad for
performance...
Funny, such test would require ~ 1 day of work.

> Should we be spinning waiting for spinlock on multi-cpu machines?  Is
> that the answer?

What do you mean?

Vadim


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bill Studenmund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: SIGCHLD handler in Postgres C function.
Следующее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Performance TODO items