Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4

On 03/16/09 11:08, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Jignesh K. Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
>
>
>> Generally when there is dead constant.. signs of classic bottleneck ;-) We
>> will be fixing one to get to another.. but knocking bottlenecks is the name of
>> the game I think
>>
>
> Indeed. I think the bottleneck we're interested in addressing here is why you
> say you weren't able to saturate the 64 threads with 64 processes when they're
> all RAM-resident.
>
> From what I see you still have 400+ processes? Is that right?
>
>

Any one claiming they run CPU intensive are not always telling the
truth.. They *Think* they are running CPU intensive for the right part
but there could be memory misses, they could be doing statistics where
they are not really stressing the intended stuff to test, they could be
parsing through the results where they are not stressing the backend
while still claiming to be cpu intensive (though from a different
perspective)

So yes a single process specially a client cannot claim to keep the
backend 100% active but so can neither a connection pooler since it
still has to some other stuff within the process.

-Jignesh