Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF9B1337B5D
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  7 Oct 2010 15:06:38 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 26392-05-2
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  7 Oct 2010 18:06:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from tamriel.snowman.net (tamriel.snowman.net [72.66.115.51])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302701337BB0
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  7 Oct 2010 15:06:21 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by tamriel.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 834C622941; Thu,  7 Oct 2010 14:06:20 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 14:06:20 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to
	48)performance
Message-ID: <20101007180620.GY26232@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <AANLkTimW2UgVPGw6MRUBj9HabvwmsmkZasL3hKv-nUJ2@mail.gmail.com>
	<20101004175545.GA2690@csail.mit.edu>
	<4CAA21C7.1030701@agliodbs.com> <i8itbn$kre$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<AANLkTikXHJL+u9OdgiqCBQLB-bMcrkZeB1eEeyZqBPvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20101007013012.GN26232@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<AANLkTi=AfTAwMv=WXdZeLzY0NNBZ1sJHDsDK+wmRMcVS@mail.gmail.com>
	<20101007020707.GP26232@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<AANLkTi=yhgL0KGmwx7SK20nBv4jqFufcscutvufkT+CN@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CADBB410200002500036644@gw.wicourts.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DAXZOU02cnSJSKTz"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4CADBB410200002500036644@gw.wicourts.gov>
X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/
X-Info: http://www.snowman.net
X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.26-1-amd64 (x86_64)
X-Uptime: 14:05:12 up 406 days,  5:30, 14 users,  load average: 0.11, 0.11,
	0.03
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201010/60
X-Sequence-Number: 40479


--DAXZOU02cnSJSKTz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Kevin Grittner (Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov) wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > perhaps it would be possible by, say, increasing the number of
> > lock partitions by 8x.  It would be nice to segregate these issues
> > though, because using pread/pwrite is probably a lot less work
> > than rewriting our lock manager.
> =20
> You mean easier than changing this 4 to a 7?:
> =20
> #define LOG2_NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS  4
> =20
> Or am I missing something?

I'm pretty sure we were talking about the change described in the paper
of moving to a system which uses atomic changes instead of spinlocks for
certain locking situations..

If that's all the MIT folks did, they certainly made it sound like alot
more. :)

	Stephen

--DAXZOU02cnSJSKTz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkyuDBwACgkQrzgMPqB3kigQRQCeP0d09qjc4+bBxKLSVIMSfqs7
xIkAnR/Qsfdlr7r+2Ek/acXHY4Ab1uMa
=QS8v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--DAXZOU02cnSJSKTz--