"Strong, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We have some results for you. We left the buffer partition locks at 128
> as this did not seem to be a concern and we're still using 25 backend
> processes. We ran tests for 4, 8 and 16 lock partitions.
> For 4 lock partitions, it took 620 seconds to acquire locks and 32
> seconds to release locks. The test produced 199.95 TPS.
> For 8 lock partitions, it took 505 seconds to acquire locks and 31
> seconds to release locks. The test produced 201.16 TPS.
> For 16 lock partitions, it took 362 seconds to acquire locks and 22
> seconds to release locks. The test produced 200.75 TPS.
> And, just for grins, using 128 buffer and 128 lock partitions, took 235
> seconds to acquire locks and 22 seconds to release locks. The test
> produced 203.24 TPS.
[ itch... ] I can't help thinking there's something wrong with this;
the wait-time measurements seem sane, but why is there essentially no
change in the TPS result?
The above numbers are only for the lock-partition LWLocks, right?
What are the totals --- that is, how much time is spent blocked
vs. processing overall?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
