From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
Cc: Robert.Lor@Sun.COM
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:34:15 -0400
Message-ID: <10226.1150511655@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060617.101521.95879771.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
References: <4492CBE2.3090509@sun.com>
<20060617.101521.95879771.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
> Interesting. We (some Japanese companies including SRA OSS,
> Inc. Japan) did some PG scalability testing using a Unisys's big 16
> (physical) CPU machine and found PG scales up to 8 CPUs. However
> beyond 8 CPU PG does not scale anymore. The result can be viewed at
> "OSS iPedia" web site (http://ossipedia.ipa.go.jp). Our conclusion was
> PG has a serious lock contention problem in the environment by
> analyzing the oprofile result.
18% in s_lock is definitely bad :-(. Were you able to determine which
LWLock(s) are accounting for the contention?
The test case seems to be spending a remarkable amount of time in LIKE
comparisons, too. That probably is not a representative condition.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, ishii@sraoss.co.jp, Robert.Lor@Sun.COM, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL
In-Reply-To: <10226.1150511655@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox