On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: > On Jun28, 2011, at 23:48 , Robert Haas wrote: >> 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. :-( > > Huh? Where do you see your CAS patch being slower than unpatched LWLocks > in these results? Or are you referring to pgbench runs you made, not > to these artificial benchmarks?
pgbench -S -- 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
