Path: news.easynews.com!easynews!news.he.net!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: yong321@yahoo.com (Yong Huang)
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
Subject: Re: Times spent on latches...fast responses gratefully appreciated.
Date: 6 Jun 2002 10:23:59 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <b3cb12d6.0206060923.78e46227@posting.google.com>
References: <BsrL8.1585$NV6.77522@news8-gui.server.ntli.net> <b3cb12d6.0206051434.2449bef9@posting.google.com> <brb*pH8pp@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.94.8.250
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1023384239 22168 127.0.0.1 (6 Jun 2002 17:23:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Jun 2002 17:23:59 GMT
Xref: easynews comp.databases.oracle.server:149768
X-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:21:23 MST (news.easynews.com)

Andrew Mobbs <andrewm@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message news:<brb*pH8pp@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>...
> Yong Huang <yong321@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >_kgl_latch_count = 23
> 
> Is there a disadvantage to just sticking this up to 67 and leaving it
> there? (Other than the obvious support issues of undocumented
> parameters.)

I never did a good benchmark. I imagine if the number is too high, way
above the number of CPUs (max 67), it would take just a little bit
more time to calculate the hash value, which is used as the number of
the latch. If you do a benchmark, please post the result.

Yong Huang