From: Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Hakan Kocaman <hkocam@googlemail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 14:35:42 -0400
Message-ID: <20101004183542.GB2690@csail.mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=33M9adSmdBQuYBeeaWX-Z=c9+DcUp8oRRG_Ru@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimW2UgVPGw6MRUBj9HabvwmsmkZasL3hKv-nUJ2@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=33M9adSmdBQuYBeeaWX-Z=c9+DcUp8oRRG_Ru@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 01:13:36PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I believe the "one of only 16 global mutexes" comment is referring to
> NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS (there's also NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS, but that
> wouldn't be relevant for row and table-level locks).
Yes -- my understanding is that they hit two lock-related problems:
1) LWLock contention caused by acquiring the same lock in compatible
modes (e.g. multiple shared locks)
2) false contention caused by acquiring two locks that hashed to the
same partition
and the first was the worse problem. The lock-free structures helpe
with both, so the impact of changing NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS was less
interesting.
Dan
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/
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: drkp@csail.mit.edu, robertmhaas@gmail.com, hkocam@googlemail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance
In-Reply-To: <20101004183542.GB2690@csail.mit.edu>
* 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