Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-04-25T10:53:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Both Heikki and I objected to that patch. > > Please explain your objection, based upon the patch and my explanations. Well, we objected to the locking. Having reread the patch a few times though, I think I'm starting to wrap my head around it so, I don't know, maybe it's OK. Have you tested grabbing the ProcArrayLock in exclusive mode instead of having a separate spinlock, to see how that performs? >> And apparently it doesn't >> fix the problem, either. So, -1 from me. > > There is an issue observed in Erik's later tests, but my interpretation > of the results so far is that the sorted array patch successfully > removes the initially reported loss of performance. Is it possible the remaining spikes are due to fights over the spinlock? ...Robert