| From: | sdv mailer <sdvmailer(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, steve(at)blighty(dot)com, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL pre-fork speedup |
| Date: | 2004-05-06 16:48:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20040506164825.50932.qmail@web60210.mail.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The speedup (UNIX) and slowdown (TCP) are both
compared against normal direct connections from Client
to PostgreSQL. This means with Pgpool (UNIX) it is 5x
faster than normal connections to PostgreSQL. It is
also 15x slower with Pgpool (TCP) compared to normal
connections to PostgreSQL.
My guess is Tatsuo will be best to answer why we see a
slowdown on the Client to PgPool using TCP. Perhaps a
bug or feature in his code. :-)
The point is pre-forking can *potentially* speed up
connections by 5x as shown in this simplistic
non-conclusive benchmark. It would be faster too
without the proxy overhead. Forking on Linux is still
a price to pay since we don't have threads but you can
make the best out of it by pre-forking a la Apache.
Theoretically, pre-forking may be faster than
threading (MySQL) because you have one less thing to
do.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-05-06 16:51:59 | Re: ALTER TABLE TODO items |
| Previous Message | James Robinson | 2004-05-06 16:44:14 | Re: PostgreSQL pre-fork speedup |