Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Performance under contention

From: Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance under contention
Date: 2010-11-22 02:18:50
Message-ID: iccjub$bn0$1@dough.gmane.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 11/22/10 02:47, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Ivan Voras  wrote:
>
>> After 16 clients (which is still good since there are only 12
>> "real" cores in the system), the performance drops sharply
>
> Yet another data point to confirm the importance of connection
> pooling.  :-)

I agree, connection pooling will get rid of the symptom. But not the 
underlying problem. I'm not saying that having 1000s of connections to 
the database is a particularly good design, only that there shouldn't be 
a sharp decline in performance when it does happen. Ideally, the 
performance should remain the same as it was at its peek.

I've been monitoring the server some more and it looks like there are 
periods where almost all servers are in the semwait state followed by 
periods of intensive work - approximately similar to the "thundering 
herd" problem, or maybe to what Josh Berkus has posted a few days ago.



In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Humair MohammedDate: 2010-11-22 06:21:40
Subject: Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-11-22 01:47:09
Subject: Re: Performance under contention

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group