From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Mark Rae <mrae(at)purplebat(dot)com>, postgres list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SMP scaling |
Date: | 2005-03-18 18:19:06 |
Message-ID: | 9191.1111169946@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> So it seems our entire SMP problem was that global lock. Nice.
Yeah, I was kind of expecting to see the LockMgrLock up next, but
it seems we're still a ways away from having a problem there. I guess
that's because we only tend to touch locks once per query, whereas
we're grabbing and releasing buffers much more.
From the relatively small absolute value of Mark's queries/sec numbers,
I suppose he is testing some fairly heavyweight queries (big enough
to not emphasize per-query overhead). I wonder what the numbers would
look like with very small, simple queries. It'd move the stress around
for sure ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-18 18:31:51 | Re: SMP scaling |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-03-18 18:11:10 | Re: SMP scaling |