Re: mosbench revisited

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Greg Stark
Тема Re: mosbench revisited
Дата
Msg-id CAM-w4HM5y0tx+-e4U+OkpQRPKgtobnhx37OUgi93anK1WvVSUQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на mosbench revisited  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: mosbench revisited
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>  I'm kind of interested by the
> result, actually, as I had feared that the spinlock protecting
> ProcArrayLock was going to be a bigger problem sooner.

I think this depends on how many connections you have. If you try to
scale up your benchmark by having hundreds of connections then get
O(n^2) increase in the time spent with the procarray locked. It sounds
like they pinned the number of connections at the number of cores they
had. That makes sense if they're intentionally driving a cpu-bound
benchmark but it means they won't run into this problem.

--
greg


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Jim Nasby
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: synchronized snapshots
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Should we have an optional limit on the recursion depth of recursive CTEs?