| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful |
| Date: | 2011-07-27 01:32:54 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYKJp1Vi+HRpThNNkuwB=9f89WhkiNnmN2oKX8X5KJwVA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> You might be right, but I think we have little knowledge of how some
> memory barrier code you haven't written yet effects performance on
> various architectures.
>
> A spinlock per backend would cache very nicely, now you mention it. So
> my money would be on the multiple copies.
Maybe so, but you can see from the numbers in my OP that the results
still leave something to be desired.
> It's not completely clear to me that updating N copies would be more
> expensive. Accessing N low contention copies rather than 1
> high-contention value might actually be a win.
Yeah, I haven't tested that approach.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-27 01:35:55 | Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2011-07-27 01:21:46 | Re: psql: bogus descriptions displayed by \d+ |