On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Also, 20 transactions per connection is not enough of a run to make
> any evaluation on.
FWIW, I kicked off a looong benchmarking run on this a couple of days
ago on the IBM POWER7 box, testing pgbench -S, regular pgbench, and
pgbench --unlogg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Nils Goroll wrote:
>> It's
>> still unproven whether it'd be an improvement, but you could expect to
>> prove it one way or the other with a well-defined amount of testing.
>
> I've hacked the code to use adaptive pthread mutexes instead of spinlocks. see
> attache
>> Using futexes directly could be even cheaper.
> Note that below this you only have the futex(2) system call.
I was only referring to the fact that we could save one function and one library
call, which could make a difference for the uncontended case.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pg
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:58:47AM +0200, Nils Goroll wrote:
> So it looks like using pthread_mutexes could at least be an option on Linux.
>
> Using futexes directly could be even cheaper.
Note that below this you only have the futex(2) system call. Futexes
require all counter manipulation to ha
> It's
> still unproven whether it'd be an improvement, but you could expect to
> prove it one way or the other with a well-defined amount of testing.
I've hacked the code to use adaptive pthread mutexes instead of spinlocks. see
attached patch. The patch is for the git head, but it can easily be
