From: | Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Glenn Maynard <glennfmaynard(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
Date: | 2009-05-13 10:29:25 |
Message-ID: | 5482c80a0905130329u3b6fd4ccp72baeba43a25cf0d@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I'm also confused, but seems discussion giving also other ideas :-)
But yes, each client is connecting to the database server only *once*.
To presice how the test is running:
- 1 client is started => 1 in total
- sleep ...
- 1 another client is started => 2 in total
- sleep ..
- 2 another clients are started => 4 in total
- sleep ..
...
... =======> 256 in total
- sleep ...
- kill clients
So I even able to monitor how each new client impact all others. The
test kit is quite flexible to prepare any kind of stress situations.
Rgds,
-Dimitri
On 5/12/09, Glenn Maynard <glennfmaynard(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I'm confused. Everyone keeps talking about connection
> pooling, but Dimitri has said repeatedly that each client makes a
> single connection and then keeps it open until the end of the test,
> not that it makes a single connection per SQL query. Connection
> startup costs shouldn't be an issue. Am I missing something here?
> test(N) starts N clients, each client creates a single connection and
> hammers the server for a while on that connection. test(N) is run for
> N=1,2,4,8...256. This seems like a very reasonable test scenario.
>
> --
> Glenn Maynard
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2009-05-13 10:53:27 | Re: increase index performance |
Previous Message | Dimitri | 2009-05-13 10:22:06 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |