| From: | Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Update on the spinlock->pthread_mutex patch experimental: replace s_lock spinlock code with pthread_mutex on linux |
| Date: | 2012-07-01 15:13:50 |
| Message-ID: | 4FF0692E.8080503@schokola.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thank you, Robert.
as this patch was not targeted towards increasing tps, I am at happy to hear
that your benchmarks also suggest that performance is "comparable".
But my main question is: how about resource consumption? For the issue I am
working on, my current working hypothesis is that spinning on locks saturates
resources and brings down overall performance in a high-contention situation.
Do you have any getrusage figures or anything equivalent?
Thanks, Nils
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nils Goroll | 2012-07-01 15:18:00 | Re: Update on the spinlock->pthread_mutex patch experimental: replace s_lock spinlock code with pthread_mutex on linux |
| Previous Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2012-07-01 14:53:47 | Re: [v9.3] Row-Level Security |