| From: | "Matt Clark" <matt(at)ymogen(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Martin Foster'" <martin(at)ethereal-realms(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "'Matthew Nuzum'" <newz(at)bearfruit(dot)org>, "'PostgreSQL Performance'" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Restricting Postgres |
| Date: | 2004-11-04 18:20:18 |
| Message-ID: | 003301c4c29a$f052d910$8300a8c0@solent |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
> Correct the 75% of all hits are on a script that can take
> anywhere from
> a few seconds to a half an hour to complete. The script
> essentially
> auto-flushes to the browser so they get new information as it arrives
> creating the illusion of on demand generation.
This is more like a streaming data server, which is a very different beast
from a webserver, and probably better suited to the job. Usually either
multithreaded or single-process using select() (just like Squid). You could
probably build one pretty easily. Using a 30MB Apache process to serve one
client for half an hour seems like a hell of a waste of RAM.
> A squid proxy would probably cause severe problems when
> dealing with a
> script that does not complete output for a variable rate of time.
No, it's fine, squid gives it to the client as it gets it, but can receive
from the server faster.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | William Yu | 2004-11-04 19:33:26 | Re: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X |
| Previous Message | Martin Foster | 2004-11-04 18:04:00 | Re: Restricting Postgres |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-11-04 19:03:47 | Re: Anything to be gained from a 'Postgres Filesystem'? |
| Previous Message | Martin Foster | 2004-11-04 18:04:00 | Re: Restricting Postgres |