| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Metin Doslu <metin(at)citusdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers |
| Date: | 2013-12-04 18:26:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20131204182601.GF7383@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On 2013-12-04 20:19:55 +0200, Metin Doslu wrote:
> - When we increased NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS to 1024, this problem is
> disappeared for 8 core machines and come back with 16 core machines on
> Amazon EC2. Would it be related with PostgreSQL locking mechanism?
You could try my lwlock-scalability improvement patches - for some
workloads here, the improvements have been rather noticeable. Which
version are you testing?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Metin Doslu | 2013-12-04 18:28:22 | Re: Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers |
| Previous Message | Metin Doslu | 2013-12-04 18:19:55 | Re: Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Metin Doslu | 2013-12-04 18:28:22 | Re: Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers |
| Previous Message | Metin Doslu | 2013-12-04 18:19:55 | Re: Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers |