From: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL pre-fork speedup |
Date: | 2004-05-05 18:12:58 |
Message-ID: | 1083780778.60668.27.camel@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 11:57, Greg Stark wrote:
> Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
>
> > Cutting that count down to 10 idlers in total by having PostgreSQL
> > prefork a specific database would make a significant difference.
>
> Well it would be 10 for each database. Since as has been pointed out before
> loading the database is most of the delay.
>
> If that's enough why not just run 10 apache processes instead of 100?
Because then we would need 10 times as many servers ;)
> I'm assuming the static non-database driven content is already separated onto
> other servers. In which case running 100 apache processes, most of which are
> idle is the source of the problem.
Most of it has been. It's the duty cycle. As stated in another email,
only about 20% of the work a script does is database related -- which
occurs all at one time. Even when all Apache backends are active, a
large number of connections will be idle but were used or will be used
at some point during the generation of that page.
It really is an Apache fault -- but I don't think it can be fixed within Apache itself.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-05-05 18:18:16 | Re: Multiple Xids in PGPROC? |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-05-05 18:06:53 | Re: PostgreSQL pre-fork speedup |