On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Also, 20 transactions per connection is not enough of a run to make
> any evaluation on.
FWIW, I kicked off a looong benchmarking run on this a couple of days
ago on the IBM POWER7 box, testing pgbench -S, regular pgbench, and
pgbench --unlogg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Nils Goroll wrote:
>> It's
>> still unproven whether it'd be an improvement, but you could expect to
>> prove it one way or the other with a well-defined amount of testing.
>
> I've hacked the code to use adaptive pthread mutexes instead of spinlocks. see
> attache
>> Using futexes directly could be even cheaper.
> Note that below this you only have the futex(2) system call.
I was only referring to the fact that we could save one function and one library
call, which could make a difference for the uncontended case.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pg
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:58:47AM +0200, Nils Goroll wrote:
> So it looks like using pthread_mutexes could at least be an option on Linux.
>
> Using futexes directly could be even cheaper.
Note that below this you only have the futex(2) system call. Futexes
require all counter manipulation to ha
