From: | "Matt Clark" <matt(at)ymogen(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Ron Johnson" <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, "PgSQL Performance ML" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load |
Date: | 2003-08-30 15:36:20 |
Message-ID: | OAEAKHEHCMLBLIDGAFELGEHIDHAA.matt@ymogen.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
> SELECT <blah>
> IF <some circumstance that happens about 1/8th of the time>
> BEGIN
> INSERT
> or
> UPDATE
> COMMIT;
>
> He says his current h/w peaks at 1/10th that rate.
>
> My question is: is that current peak rate ("300 inserts/updates
> *or* 2500 selects") based upon 1 connection, or many connections?
> With 4 CPUs, and a 4 disk RAID10, I wouldn't be surprised if 4 con-
> current connections gives the optimum speed.
Well it's more like each user interaction looks like:
SELECT
SELECT
SELECT
SELECT
SELECT
SELECT
INSERT
SELECT
SELECT
SELECT
SELECT
INSERT
SELECT
SELECT
SELECT
UPDATE
SELECT
SELECT
UPDATE
SELECT
And concurrency is very high, because it's a web app, and each httpd has one connection to PG, and there can be hundreds of active
httpd processes. Some kind of connection pooling scheme might be in order when there are that many active clients. Any views?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-08-30 15:37:01 | Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc? |
Previous Message | Jonathan Gardner | 2003-08-30 15:32:36 | ALTER TABLE ... TO ... to change related names |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rob Nagler | 2003-08-30 15:47:02 | Re: How to force Nested Loop plan? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-30 15:14:04 | Re: Selecting random rows efficiently |