From: | Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance under contention |
Date: | 2010-11-25 12:39:42 |
Message-ID: | iclle6$jdq$1@dough.gmane.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 11/22/10 18:47, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Ivan Voras<ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org> wrote:
>
>> It looks like a hack
>
> Not to everyone. In the referenced section, Hellerstein,
> Stonebraker and Hamilton say:
>
> "any good multi-user system has an admission control policy"
>
> In the case of PostgreSQL I understand the counter-argument,
> although I'm inclined to think that it's prudent for a product to
> limit resource usage to a level at which it can still function well,
> even if there's an external solution which can also work, should
> people use it correctly. It seems likely that a mature admission
> control policy could do a better job of managing some resources than
> an external product could.
I didn't think it would be that useful but yesterday I did some
(unrelated) testing with MySQL and it looks like its configuration
parameter "thread_concurrency" does something to that effect.
Initially I thought it is equivalent to PostgreSQL's max_connections but
no, connections can grow (MySQL spawns a thread per connection by
default) but the actual concurrency is limited in some way by this
parameter.
The comment for the parameter says "# Try number of CPU's*2 for
thread_concurrency" but obviously it would depend a lot on the
real-world load.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Divakar Singh | 2010-11-25 14:53:40 | Re: Which gives good performance? separate database vs separate schema |
Previous Message | tv | 2010-11-25 12:25:33 | Re: Which gives good performance? separate database vs separate schema |