| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "pgsql-performance\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4 |
| Date: | 2009-03-13 13:54:09 |
| Message-ID: | 87r6114jge.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:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> Keep in mind when you do this that it's not interesting to test a number of
>> connections much larger than the number of processors you have. Once the
>> system reaches 100% cpu usage it would be a misconfigured connection pooler
>> that kept more than that number of connections open.
>
> Greg, Unfortuately the problem is that.. I am trying to reach 100% CPU which
> I cannot and hence I am increasing the user count :-)
The effect of increasing the number of users with a connection pooler would be
to decrease the 200ms sleep time to 0.
This is all assuming the idle time is *between* transactions. If you have idle
time in the middle of transactions things become a lot more tricky. I think we
are missing something to deal with that use case.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-03-13 13:57:06 | Re: 8.4 Performance improvements: was Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4 |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-03-13 13:43:01 | Re: 8.4 Performance improvements: was Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4 |