Re: Postgres refusing to use >1 core

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Aren Cambre <aren(at)arencambre(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres refusing to use >1 core
Date: 2011-05-11 01:35:01
Message-ID: 4DC9E7C5.9080309@postnewspapers.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 11/05/11 05:34, Aren Cambre wrote:

> Using one thread, the app can do about 111 rows per second, and it's
> only exercising 1.5 of 8 CPU cores while doing this. 12,000,000 rows /
> 111 rows per second ~= 30 hours.

I don't know how I missed that. You ARE maxing out one cpu core, so
you're quite right that you need more threads unless you can make your
single worker more efficient.

Why not just spawn more copies of your program and have them work on
ranges of the data, though? Might that not be simpler than juggling
threading schemes?

--
Craig Ringer

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2011-05-11 03:13:31 Re: Postgres NoSQL emulation
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2011-05-11 01:32:35 Re: Postgres refusing to use >1 core