Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

Vadim Mikheev <vmikheev@sectorbase.com>

From: "Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev@sectorbase.com>
To: <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2001-09-29T08:45:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> I have committed changes to implement this proposal.  I'm not seeing
> any significant performance difference on pgbench on my single-CPU
> system ... but pgbench is I/O bound anyway on this hardware, so that's
> not very surprising.  I'll be interested to see what other people
> observe.  (Tatsuo, care to rerun that 1000-client test?)

What is your system? CPU, memory, IDE/SCSI, OS?
Scaling factor and # of clients?

BTW1 - shouldn't we rewrite pgbench to use threads instead of
"libpq async queries"? At least as option. I'd say that with 1000
clients current pgbench implementation is very poor.

BTW2 - shouldn't we learn if there are really portability/performance
issues in using POSIX mutex-es (and cond. variables) in place of
TAS (and SysV semaphores)?

Vadim