Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote: > > But the snapshots only are grabbing the xids from each proc, right? > > Doesn't seem that would take very long. > > > > If this is the bottleneck, maybe we need a shared proc lock. > > > > > I had a hard day testing and verifying this kind of stuff. We have run > several hundred benchmarks at the customer using many different > settings. SERIALIZABLE was the key to high-performance. I have run > dozens of different benchmarks today (cursors, simple selects, > concurrent stuff, ...). I have not found a difference. I have no idea > why the customer's system was so much faster in SERIALIZABLE mode. They > use a native C++ implementation of the FE/BE protocol but as far as I > have seen their database layer does not care about transaction isolation > too much.
They do the backend protocol using a custom implementation. Why would they do that? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
