From: | Rick Otten <rottenwindfish(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin(dot)Hughes(at)uk(dot)fujitsu(dot)com |
Cc: | "pgsql-performa(dot)" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Client Server performance & UDS |
Date: | 2017-05-27 12:26:31 |
Message-ID: | CAMAYy4J1CrDfvTdSpx9zZ-aZ5W=AJmOPKBTRBhg9V69G7B_sjw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
You should have a layer such as pgbouncer between your pg instance and your
application. It is designed to mitigate the access latency issues you
describe.
On May 26, 2017 10:03 AM, "Kevin(dot)Hughes(at)uk(dot)fujitsu(dot)com" <
Kevin(dot)Hughes(at)uk(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> This is a general question around this performance area
> rather than a specific performance problem.....so I apologise now for a
> lack of a specific detail.
>
>
>
> We have an application that does many small actions on the
> DB – and it’s a small DB (a 50/100 Mbytes) so we would expect it to be
> contained in memory. Accesses need to be low latency – unfortunately there
> are “serial” accesses where the result of one access governs the next.
> Luckily the work to be done by the DB is, we believe, very simple and
> hence fast. Everything is running on one (large) server so we use UDS to
> connect the client to the server.
>
>
>
> Out observation (suspicion) is that the latency of the access, as opposed
> to the cost of the query, is high. Having done some investigation we
> believe the UDS latency may be contributing AND the cost imposed by
> postgres in “formatting” the messages between the client and server
> (transformation to network format?).
>
>
>
> We will try and get underneath this with real results/measurements but I
> would appreciate any comments pointers on what we are doing and how/if we
> can optimise this style of applications
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services
> Limited (registered in England No 96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in
> England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: 22 Baker Street,
> London W1U 3BW; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) and
> Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Limited (registered in England No. 4153469)
> both with registered offices at: Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes,
> Middlesex, UB4 8FE.
> This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are
> subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not
> guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it
> is virus-free.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | phb07 | 2017-05-27 15:42:54 | Re: Monitoring tool for Postgres Database |
Previous Message | 梁海安(Killua Leung) | 2017-05-27 08:40:46 | Different plan between 9.6 and 9.4 when using "Group by" |