| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Metin Doslu <metin(at)citusdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers |
| Date: | 2013-12-05 18:13:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpa+J-kxsmqSeLfbXoJr9ExP8e7-W3H_aLxbd=XXHAf_Vw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Metin Doslu <metin(at)citusdata(dot)com> wrote:
>> From what I've seen so far the bigger problem than contention in the
>> lwlocks itself, is the spinlock protecting the lwlocks...
>
> Postgres 9.3.1 also reports spindelay, it seems that there is no contention
> on spinlocks.
Did you check hugepages?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-12-05 18:21:31 | Re: Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-12-05 17:54:36 | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | bricklen | 2013-12-05 19:19:26 | Re: WAL + SSD = slow inserts? |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2013-12-05 18:08:14 | Re: WAL + SSD = slow inserts? |