On 11/28/10, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In a close race, I don't think we should get bogged down in
> micro-optimization here, both because micro-optimizations may not gain
> much and because what works well on one platform may not do much at
> all on another. The more general issue here is what to do about our
> high backend startup costs. Beyond trying to recycle backends for new
> connections, as I've previous proposed and with all the problems it
Is there a particular discussion of that matter you could point me to?
> the only thing that looks promising here is to try to somehow
> cut down on the cost of populating the catcache and relcache, not that
> I have a very clear idea how to do that. This has to be a soluble
> problem because other people have solved it.
Oracle's backend start up time seems to be way higher than PG's.
Their main solution is something that is fundamentally a built in
connection pooler with some bells and whistles built in. I'm not
sure "other people" you had in mind--Oracle is generally the one that
pops to my mind.
> To some degree we're a
> victim of our own flexible and extensible architecture here, but I
> find it pretty unsatisfying to just say, OK, well, we're slow.
What about "well OK, we have PGbouncer"? Are there fixable
short-comings that it has which could make the issue less of an issue?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Itagaki Takahiro||Date: 2010-12-01 04:53:47|
|Subject: Re: SQL/MED - core functionality|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-12-01 04:27:35|
|Subject: Re: unlogged tables|