Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: decibel <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "pgsql-performance\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Date: 2009-03-16 15:08:12
Message-ID: 87fxhd33qb.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"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?

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2009-03-16 15:28:10 Re: Postgres benchmarking with pgbench
Previous Message Greg Smith 2009-03-16 15:04:23 Re: Postgres benchmarking with pgbench