| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Date: | 2009-05-12 16:07:59 |
| Message-ID: | 1242144479.20358.5.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:22 +0200, Dimitri wrote:
> Robert, what I'm testing now is 256 users max. The workload is growing
> progressively from 1, 2, 4, 8 ... to 256 users. Of course the Max
> throughput is reached on the number of users equal to 2 * number of
> cores, but what's important for me here - database should continue to
> keep the workload! - response time regressing, but the troughput
> should remain near the same.
>
> So, do I really need a pooler to keep 256 users working?? - I don't
> think so, but please, correct me.
If they disconnect and reconnect yes. If they keep the connections live
then no.
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri | 2009-05-12 16:16:59 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-05-12 15:46:37 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |