Lock partitions
in [PgSql]
|
From: Mark Wong on 20 Sep 2006 13:20 Mark Wong wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Mark Wong <markw(a)osdl.org> writes: >>> Curious, I'm still seeing the same behavior. Maybe I'll take another >>> snapshot from CVS. >> >> Hm, maybe I need to try a bit harder here. Does the "not registered" >> error happen immediately/reliably for you, or do you need to run the >> test awhile? > > I did a gross test and my kit appears broken between the 8.0 and 8.1 > releases. I'll try to narrow down the exact date. I've narrowed it down between cvs pulls from Dec 14, 2005 and Dec 15, 2005. Does the attached diff appear to be a plausible cause? Thanks, Mark
From: Tom Lane on 20 Sep 2006 13:37 Mark Wong <markw(a)osdl.org> writes: >> I did a gross test and my kit appears broken between the 8.0 and 8.1 >> releases. I'll try to narrow down the exact date. > I've narrowed it down between cvs pulls from Dec 14, 2005 and Dec 15, > 2005. Does the attached diff appear to be a plausible cause? No, not particularly. You sure about those dates? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
From: Mark Wong on 20 Sep 2006 13:47 Tom Lane wrote: > Mark Wong <markw(a)osdl.org> writes: >>> I did a gross test and my kit appears broken between the 8.0 and 8.1 >>> releases. I'll try to narrow down the exact date. > >> I've narrowed it down between cvs pulls from Dec 14, 2005 and Dec 15, >> 2005. Does the attached diff appear to be a plausible cause? > > No, not particularly. You sure about those dates? Ugh, double checking tells me I'm wrong. I'll keep testing. Thanks, Mark ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
From: Mark Wong on 18 Oct 2006 11:47 Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes: >> I see this in the CVS commits for 8.2. Did we determine the proper >> number of lock partitions? Should it be based on the number of buffers >> or concurrent sessions allowed? > > No. NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS needs to be a compile-time constant for a > number of reasons, and there is absolutely zero evidence to justify > making any effort (and spending any cycles) on a variable value. > > It would be nice to see some results from the OSDL tests with, say, 4, > 8, and 16 lock partitions before we forget about the point though. > Anybody know whether OSDL is in a position to run tests for us? I have a couple of bigger runs now against a CVS checkout on 2006-09-20 (please forgive my NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS note if you notice that on the web pages): Baseline (default NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS=4): notpm 6589 http://dbt.osdl.org/dbt/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/184/ NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS=8: notpm 4471 http://dbt.osdl.org/dbt/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/180/ NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS=16: Failed to run. The number of transaction errors increased when I increased the NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS, which I think is the reason it failed to run when I set it to 16. And the throughput went down significantly (32%). Should I try against a more recent checkout? Mark ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(a)postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
From: Tom Lane on 18 Oct 2006 12:47
Mark Wong <markw(a)osdl.org> writes: > The number of transaction errors increased when I increased the > NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS, which I think is the reason it failed to run when I > set it to 16. Hmm, what sort of errors are we talking about? I wonder if you've exposed a bug. Changing NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS really shouldn't have any semantic effect. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster |