Re: What setup would you choose for postgresql 9.2 installation?

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: AJ Weber <aweber(at)comcast(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: What setup would you choose for postgresql 9.2 installation?
Date: 2013-03-04 14:36:53
Message-ID: CAOR=d=1ObuuSJJpxfvJRRjdiOvPTTJiDkq-QN3Ycw3yWXcYUxg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:04 AM, AJ Weber <aweber(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote:
> Apologies for the tangential question, but how would pgpool2 "increase
> throughput"? Wouldn't the same number of statements be issued by your
> application? It would likely reduce the number of concurrent connections,
> but that doesn't necessarily equate to "increased throughput".

This is a pretty common subject. Most servers have a "peak
throughput" that occurs at some fixed number of connections. for
instance a common throughput graph of pgbench on a server might look
like this:

conns : tps
1 : 200
2 : 250
4 : 400
8 : 750
12 : 1200
16 : 2000
24 : 2200
28 : 2100
32 : 2000
40 : 1800
64 : 1200
80 : 800
100 : 400

So by concentrating your connections to be ~24 you would get maximum
throughput. Such a graph is typical for most db servers, just a
different "sweet spot" where the max throughput for a given number of
connections. Some servers fall off fast past this number, some just
slowly drop off.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message AJ Weber 2013-03-04 14:43:51 Re: What setup would you choose for postgresql 9.2 installation?
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2013-03-04 14:21:41 Re: pgbench intriguing results: better tps figures for larger scale factor