Re: Optimizing Read-Only Scalability
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Optimizing Read-Only Scalability |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 603c8f070905141106q1f2e351dmac7cf66f00eadee0@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Optimizing Read-Only Scalability (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Optimizing Read-Only Scalability
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> GetSnapshotData doesn't take an exclusive lock. Neither does start or >>> end of a read-only transaction. AFAIK there is no reason, and certainly >>> no shred of experimental evidence, to think that ProcArrayLock >>> contention is the bottleneck for read-only scenarios. > >> I think Simon's point was that it is O(n) rather than O(1), not that >> it took an exclusive lock. > > I think my point was that there's no evidence that GetSnapshotData > is where the scalability issue is. Without some evidence there's no > point in kluging it up. Sure. I don't think anyone was proposing to commit something without first testing it. Supposing that the patch can be shown to improve performance for all-read-only workloads, and supposing further that the patch can be shown to have no material negative impact on write-heavy workloads, it would also be interesting to throw in a bit of scattered write traffic and see whether that completely negates the benefit or not. ...Robert
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: