On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> user-32: >> none(1.0),atomicinc(14.4),pg_lwlock_cas(22.1),cmpxchng(41.2),pg_lwlock(588.2),spin(1264.7) > > I may not be following all this correctly, but doesn't this suggest a > huge potential upside for the cas based patch you posted upthread when > combined with your earlier patches that were bogging down on spinlock > contentionl?
Well, you'd think so, but in fact that patch makes it slower. Don't ask me why, 'cuz I dunno. :-( -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
