On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, D. Hageman wrote: > Oh, man ... am I reading stuff into what you are writing or are you > reading stuff into what I am writing? Maybe a little bit of both? My > original contention is that I think that the best way to get the full > potential out of SMP machines is to use a threads model. I didn't say the > present way wasn't fast. Or alternatively, that the current inter-process locking is a bit inefficient. Its possible to have inter-process locks that are as fast as inter-thread locks.
> > Actually, if I remember, there was someone who ported postgresql (I think > > it was 6.5) to be multithreaded with major pain, because the requirement > > was to integrate with CORBA. I believe that person posted some benchmarks > > which were essentially identical to non-threaded postgres... > > Actually, it was 7.0.2 and the performance gain was interesting. The > posting can be found at: > > 7.0.2 About 10:52 average completion > multi-threaded 2:42 average completion > 7.1beta3 1:13 average completion > > If the multi-threaded version was 7.0.2 and threads increased performance > that much - I would have to say that was a bonus. However, the > performance increases that the PostgreSQL team implemented later ... > pushed the regular version ahead again. That kinda says to me that > potential is there. Alternatively, you could read that 7.1 took the wind out of threaded sails. :) But I guess we won't know until the current version is ported to threads... -alex ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])