| From: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Date: | 2009-05-13 00:34:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20090513003448.GY3305@yugib.highrise.ca |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
* Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> [090512 19:27]:
> Apache solved this problem back when it was still called NSCA HTTPD. Why
> aren't we preforking again?
Of course, preforking and connection pooling are totally different
beast...
But, what really does preforking give us? A 2 or 3% improvement? The
forking isn't the expensive part, the per-database setup that happens is
the expensive setup... All pre-forking would save us is a tiny part of
the initial setup, and in turn make our robust postmaster controller no
longer have control.
a.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-05-13 00:39:45 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Previous Message | David Wilson | 2009-05-13 00:12:41 | Re: superlative missuse |