Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: "Ivan Voras" <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance
Date: 2010-10-07 18:22:02
Message-ID: 4CADC97A0200002500036662@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner (Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov) wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>>> perhaps it would be possible by, say, increasing the number of
>>> lock partitions by 8x.

>> changing this 4 to a 7?:
>>
>> #define LOG2_NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS 4

> I'm pretty sure we were talking about the change described in the
> paper of moving to a system which uses atomic changes instead of
> spinlocks for certain locking situations..

Well, they also mentioned increasing the number of lock partitions
to reduce contention, and that seemed to be what Robert was talking
about in the quoted section.

Of course, that's not the *only* thing they did; it's just the point
which seemed to be under discussion just there.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2010-10-07 18:31:53 Re: Issues with Quorum Commit
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-10-07 18:13:21 Re: Issues with Quorum Commit

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dan Harris 2010-10-07 18:29:38 Re: large dataset with write vs read clients
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2010-10-07 18:06:20 Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance