On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 04:31:44PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 01:45:28PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > I set up supersmack against postgresql 8.1 from ports (default config)
> > on a 12 CPU E4500. It scales and performs somewhat better than mysql
> > on this machine (w
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
* The postgres processes seem to change their proctitle hundreds or
thousands of times per second. This is currently done via a
Giant-locked sysctl (kern.proc.args) so there is enormous contention for
Giant. Even when this is fixed (thanks to a patch
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 01:45:28PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> I set up supersmack against postgresql 8.1 from ports (default config)
> on a 12 CPU E4500. It scales and performs somewhat better than mysql
> on this machine (which is heavily limited by contention between
> threads in a process),
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
* The postgres processes seem to change their proctitle hundreds or
thousands of times per second. This is currently done via a Giant-locked
sysctl (kern.proc.args) so there is enormous contention for Giant. Even
when this is fixed (thanks to a patc
I set up supersmack against postgresql 8.1 from ports (default config)
on a 12 CPU E4500. It scales and performs somewhat better than mysql
on this machine (which is heavily limited by contention between
threads in a process), but there are a number of obvious performance
bottlenecks:
* The postg
