Dave, > Yeah, I did some more testing myself, and actually get better numbers > with increasing spins per delay to 1000, but my suspicion is that it is > highly dependent on finding the right delay for the processor you are > on.
Well, it certainly didn't help here: procs memory swap io system cpu r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 2 0 0 14870744 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1027 187341 48 27 26 0 2 0 0 14869912 123872 1129912 0 0 0 48 1030 126490 65 18 16 0 2 0 0 14867032 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1021 106046 72 16 12 0 2 0 0 14869912 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1025 90256 76 14 10 0 2 0 0 14870424 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1022 135249 63 22 16 0 2 0 0 14872664 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1023 131111 63 20 17 0 1 0 0 14871128 123872 1129912 0 0 0 48 1024 155728 57 22 20 0 2 0 0 14871128 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1028 189655 49 29 22 0 2 0 0 14871064 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1018 190744 48 29 23 0 2 0 0 14871064 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1027 186812 51 26 23 0 -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html