From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Increase in max_connections |
Date: | 2014-03-11 20:06:25 |
Message-ID: | 531F6CC1.6070809@hogranch.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 3/11/2014 10:20 AM, Anand Kumar, Karthik wrote:
> We typically see about 500-700 active queries at a time
if these are primarily small/fast queries, like OLTP operations, and you
DONT have 200-400 CPU cores on this server, you will likely find that if
you use a queueing mechanism to only execute about 2X your CPU core
count concurrently, you will get MORE total transactions/second than
trying to do 500-700 at once.
if your apps are using persistent connections, then the session pooling
model won't do any good, you should use transaction pooling. you want
the actual active query count to be tunable, probably down around 2X the
cpu core count, depending on various things. some folks say, CPU
cores/threads plus disk spindles is the optimal number.
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Francisco Figueiredo Jr. | 2014-03-11 22:19:14 | Re: Recovering from failed transaction |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-03-11 19:47:12 | Re: Increase in max_connections |