On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > You might be right, but I think we have little knowledge of how some > memory barrier code you haven't written yet effects performance on > various architectures. > > A spinlock per backend would cache very nicely, now you mention it. So > my money would be on the multiple copies.
Maybe so, but you can see from the numbers in my OP that the results still leave something to be desired. > It's not completely clear to me that updating N copies would be more > expensive. Accessing N low contention copies rather than 1 > high-contention value might actually be a win. Yeah, I haven't tested that approach. -- 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
