On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 02:44:55PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> I think that it would be interesting to discuss multi(processes/threades)
> model vs mono (process/thread). Mono as in _one_ single process/thread
> per CPU, not one per session. That is, moving all the "scheduling"
> between sessions entirely to userspace. The server gains almost complete
> control over the data structures allocated per session, and the resources
> allocated _to_ sessions.
This is how DB2 and Oracle work. Having scheduling control is very
interesting, but I'm not sure it needs to be accomplished this way.
There are other advantages too; in both products you have a single pool
of sort memory; you can allocate as much memory to sorting as you want
without the risk of exceeding it. PostgreSQL can't do this and it makes
writing code that wants a lot of sort memory a real pain. Of course this
could probably be solved without going to a 'mono process' model.
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Ed L.||Date: 2004-10-28 22:51:05|
|Subject: Re: determine sequence name for a serial|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-10-28 22:39:39|
|Subject: Re: Derived tables? |