From: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder <avbidder(at)fortytwo(dot)ch>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Options for growth |
Date: | 2003-01-17 12:05:03 |
Message-ID: | 200301170705.03474.darcy@druid.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday 16 January 2003 11:59, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 17:42, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > We are also looking at hardware solutions, multi-CPU PCs with tons (24GB)
> > of memory. I know that memory will improve access if it prevents
> > swapping but how well does PostgreSQL utilize multiple CPUs?
>
> At most one CPU is used for any single postgres backend (that means for
> any single database connection). So, if your load problem is single
> queries being too slow, thee's nothing you can do with adding more CPUs.
> If your problem is many connections maxing out the db, PostgreSQL can
> take full advantage of multiple CPUs.
I most definitely have multiple queries running at once. My main issue is
whether PostgreSQL scales up properly or does it get bogged down with too
many locked queries.
> Of course, most db apps still are not cpu bound, so you'd have to do
> some careful benchmarking first or you'll be spending too much money.
Natch.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Liu | 2003-01-17 14:19:19 | createlang failed! |
Previous Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2003-01-17 12:02:50 | Re: Options for growth |