| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aren Cambre <aren(at)arencambre(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pierre C <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres refusing to use >1 core |
| Date: | 2011-05-12 03:35:38 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTimz1ZLu=+_H_RfoXROwXQLvTJE80Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Aren Cambre <aren(at)arencambre(dot)com> wrote:
>> Using unix sockets, you can expect about 10-20.000 queries/s on small
>> simple selects per core, which is quite a feat. TCP adds overhead, so it's
>> slower. Over a network, add ping time.
>
> I'm talking to a Postgres on localhost, so in theory, I ought to be getting
> really good throughput, but again, the problem may be with the way C#'s
> PLINQ "multithreading in a can" is managing things.
local tcp is gonna be slower not faster than unix sockets, not faster.
But the big issue is that you need to exlpore doing the work in a
large set not iteratively. Operations on sets are often much faster
in aggregate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-05-12 03:36:19 | Re: Checkpoint execution overrun impact? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-05-12 03:22:27 | Re: DBT-5 & Postgres 9.0.3 |