From: | "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Throttling PostgreSQL's CPU usage |
Date: | 2007-05-08 22:40:05 |
Message-ID: | 20070508224004.GA8878@uio.no |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 06:32:14PM -0400, Carlos Moreno wrote:
>> Or use a dual-core system. :-)
> Am I missing something?? There is just *one* instance of this idea in,
> what, four replies?? I find it so obvious, and so obviously the only
> solution that has any hope to work, that it makes me think I'm missing
> something ...
Actually, it should be added that this suggestion was only partially
tongue-in-cheek. I wrote a 3D application as part of an internship a couple
of years ago, and it had a problem that worked vaguely like the given
scenario: Adding a background task (in this case the task that loaded in new
pieces of terrain) would kill the framerate for the user, but nicing down
(actually, down-prioritizing, as this was on Windows) the back-end would
starve it completely of cycles. The solution was to just define that this
would only be run on multiprocessor systems, where both tasks would chug
along nicely :-)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Carlos Moreno | 2007-05-08 22:46:42 | Re: Throttling PostgreSQL's CPU usage |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-05-08 22:39:55 | Re: Throttling PostgreSQL's CPU usage |