Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jeff Janes
Тема Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2
Дата
Msg-id CAMkU=1xiAYXxaBMGZ9DVzZRGggv0Jk4hz3CAmR87S+zyucvqEA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

Some background:
The setups that triggered me into working on the patchset didn't really
have a pgbench like workload, the individual queries were/are more
complicated even though it's still an high throughput OLTP workload. And
the contention was *much* higher than what I can reproduce with pgbench
-S, there was often nearly all time spent in the lwlock's spinlock, and
it was primarily the buffer mapping lwlocks, being locked in shared
mode. The difference is that instead of locking very few buffers per
query like pgbench does, they touched much more.


Perhaps I should try to argue for this extension to pgbench again:


I think it would go a good job of exercising what you want, provided you set the scale so that all data fit in RAM but not in shared_buffers.  

Or maybe you want it to fit in shared_buffers, since the buffer mapping lock was contended in shared mode--that suggests the problem is finding the buffer that already has the page, not making a buffer to have the page.

Cheers,

Jeff

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Pavel Stehule
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Misaligned BufferDescriptors causing major performance problems on AMD