X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55009FA65C; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:10:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01947-01; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:10:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF3339FA64B; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:10:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6NIAQ24003707; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:10:26 -0400 (EDT) To: Robert Lor cc: Tatsuo Ishii , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL In-reply-to: <44C195F8.9010409@sun.com> References: <20060617.101521.95879771.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp> <10226.1150511655@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060617.111838.39487910.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp> <20060713.180234.45872055.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp> <8669.1153422118@sss.pgh.pa.us> <44C088C8.9050303@sun.com> <21889.1153489365@sss.pgh.pa.us> <44C195F8.9010409@sun.com> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Lor message dated "Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:05:28 -0700" Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:10:26 -0400 Message-ID: <3706.1153678226@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200607/227 X-Sequence-Number: 20087 Robert Lor writes: > Here is the break down between exclusive & shared LWLocks. Do the > numbers look reasonable to you? Yeah, those seem plausible, although the hold time for CheckpointStartLock seems awfully high --- about 20 msec per transaction. Are you using a nonzero commit_delay? regards, tom lane