Re: Database block lifecycle

From: pinker <pinker(at)onet(dot)eu>
To: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Database block lifecycle
Date: 2014-08-12 22:52:05
Message-ID: 53EA9A94.208@onet.eu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Ok, I wasn't precisely enough, you are right. It's brand new server,
nothing is yet configured and we have not even os installed. The number
was the overall count we expect for a whole cluster.

But the main question is: is it possible to completely avoid disk read
if there is huge amount of RAM available?

Am 13.08.2014 00:39, schrieb John R Pierce:
> On 8/12/2014 3:29 PM, pinker wrote:
>> yes, I know the count is quite high. It is the max value we've
>> estimated, but probably on average day it will be 100-200, and yes we
>> use pgpool.
>
>
> if you're using a pooler, then why would you be using 200 concurrent
> connections, unless you have a 50 or 100 CPU cores/threads ?
>
> if you have 1000 transactions to execute on a 32 core server, and you
> try and do 200 at once, it will take longer than if you do 64 at a
> time and let the rest queue up.
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John R Pierce 2014-08-12 22:56:18 Re: Database block lifecycle
Previous Message John R Pierce 2014-08-12 22:39:35 Re: Database block lifecycle