From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tharakan, Robins" <tharar(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |
Date: | 2020-06-29 23:00:19 |
Message-ID: | 20200629230019.o75zwqtfiolxbkw2@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-06-29 09:05:18 +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I can't reproduce this on my laptop, but I can certainly believe that
> running the same 3 queries using more connections than available cores
> will lead to extra overhead.
> I disagree with the conclusion though. It seems to me that if you
> really have this workload that consists in these few queries and want
> to get better performance, you'll anyway use a connection pooler
> and/or use prepared statements, which will make this overhead
> disappear entirely, and will also yield an even bigger performance
> improvement.
It's an extremely common to have have times where there's more active
queries than CPUs. And a pooler won't avoid that fully, at least not
without drastically reducing overall throughput.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-06-29 23:10:15 | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-06-29 22:29:06 | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |