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 15:38:28
Message-ID: ice2pd$ae8$1@dough.gmane.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 11/22/10 16:26, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Ivan Voras<ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>  wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, I suggested that we add an admission control[1] mechanism,

It looks like a hack (and one which is already implemented by connection 
pool software); the underlying problem should be addressed.

But on the other hand if it's affecting so many people, maybe a warning 
comment in postgresql.conf around max_connections would be helpful.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-11-22 17:47:15
Subject: Re: Performance under contention
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-11-22 15:26:21
Subject: Re: Performance under contention

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