From: | PFC <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bob Ippolito" <bob(at)redivi(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Mark Cotner" <mcotner(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: sustained update load of 1-2k/sec |
Date: | 2005-08-19 18:11:54 |
Message-ID: | op.svrot4mxth1vuj@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> While I agree that hundreds of threads seems like overkill, I think the
> above advice might be going too far in the other direction. The problem
> with single-threaded operation is that any delay affects the whole
> system --- eg, if you're blocked waiting for disk I/O, the CPU doesn't
You use UDP which is a connectionless protocol... then why use threads ?
I'd advise this :
Use asynchronous network code (one thread) to do your network stuff. This
will lower the CPU used by this code immensely.
Every minute, dump a file contianing everything to insert into the table.
Use another thread to COPY it into the DB, in a temporary table if you
wish, and then INSERT INTO ... SELECT.
This should be well adapted to your requirements.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron | 2005-08-19 18:42:43 | Re: extremly low memory usage |
Previous Message | Ron | 2005-08-19 17:57:46 | Re: sustained update load of 1-2k/sec |