From: | tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements |
Date: | 2010-09-18 05:41:53 |
Message-ID: | 20100918054153.GA14872@tomas |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:21:13PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
[...]
> Wow, 100 processes??! Really? I guess I don't actually know how large
> modern proctables are, but on my MacOS X machine, for example, there
> are only 75 processes showing up right now in "ps auxww". My Fedora
> 12 machine has 97. That's including a PostgreSQL instance in the
> first case and an Apache instance in the second case. So 100 workers
> seems like a ton to me.
As an equally unscientific data point, on my box, a typical desktop box
(actually a netbook, slow CPU, but beefed up to 2GB RAM), I have 5
PostgreSQL processes running, which take away about 1.2 MB (resident) --
not each one, but together!. As a contrast, there is *one* mysql daemon
(don't ask!), taking away 17 MB. The worst offenders are, by far, the
eye-candy thingies, as one has become accustomed to expect :-(
What I wanted to say is that the PostgreSQL processes are unusually
light-weight by modern standards.
Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFMlFEhBcgs9XrR2kYRAlqHAJ9rz5eQhqnh62H5QljDjU0E68ai6wCffnCW
ybV0RIdDy769/JYBBq7xakA=
=7Vc/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2010-09-18 07:17:44 | Re: compile/install of git |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-18 03:43:15 | Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements |