Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load

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?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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