Robert Haas wrote: > SIGetDataEntries(). I believe we need to bite the bullet and > rewrite this using a lock-free algorithm, using memory barriers on > processors with weak memory ordering. > [32 processors; 80 clients] > On unpatched master > tps = 132518.586371 (including connections establishing) > tps = 130968.749747 (including connections establishing) > tps = 132574.338942 (including connections establishing) > With the lazy vxid locks patch > tps = 119215.958372 (including connections establishing) > tps = 113056.859871 (including connections establishing) > tps = 160562.770998 (including connections establishing) > gets rid of SInvalReadLock and instead gives each backend its own > spinlock. > tps = 167392.042393 (including connections establishing) > tps = 171336.145020 (including connections establishing) > tps = 170500.529303 (including connections establishing) > SIGetDataEntries() can pretty easily be made lock-free. > tps = 203256.701227 (including connections establishing) > tps = 190637.957571 (including connections establishing) > tps = 190228.617178 (including connections establishing) > Thoughts? Comments? Ideas? Very impressive! Those numbers definitely justify some #ifdef code to provide alternatives for weak memory ordering machines versus others. With the number of CPUs climbing as it is, this is very important work! -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
