Re: [HACKERS] backend startup

Don Baccus wrote:
>
> At 09:32 AM 2/10/00 +1100, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
> >> I can see where (a) is true, but who really cares about (b) any
> >> more? NT, BSD, or Linux on a several hundred dollar PC has no problem
> >> with dozens of processes...
>
> >Well there is socket overhead and extra context-switching time.
>
> Given how expensive the basic RDBMS structure is, I imagine this
> is a bit like worrying about the fact that the bugs on my windshield
> increase drag and decrease my gas mileage.
>
> I mean ... this is undoubtably true, but really pales in comparison
> to other factors that impact my gas mileage.

Well I don't know, but I know VERSANT for example provides a lib1p.so
and a lib2p.so, and I know they make sure to link against 1p.so for
benchmarks.

> Now, if you got rid of all the baggage associated with sharing buffers,
> locking, and all the rest that goes with the multiple process model
> used by Postgres you might end up with a single-process/single client
> version that is noticably faster.

Well, I'm not talking about a single client version. That would be of
dubious value.

> But just getting rid of the kernel overhead of two processes talking
> to each other isn't going to get you much, I don't think. You might
> be able to measure it for something like "select 1", but real queries
> on real databases? I find it hard to believe.