X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5439FA5BA for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 12:12:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74234-02 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 12:12:43 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64159FA311 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 12:12:42 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k53FCcgr015972; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 11:12:38 -0400 (EDT) To: fzied@planet.tn cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: scaling up postgres In-reply-to: <200606030931.k539V38Y007877@smtp2.planet.net.tn> References: <200606030931.k539V38Y007877@smtp2.planet.net.tn> Comments: In-reply-to fzied@planet.tn message dated "Sat, 03 Jun 2006 10:31:03 +0100" Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:12:38 -0400 Message-ID: <15971.1149347558@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/23 X-Sequence-Number: 19380 fzied@planet.tn writes: > I'm using httperf/autobench for measurments and the best result I can get > is that my system can handle a trafiic of almost 1600 New con/sec. As per PFC's comment, if connections/sec is a bottleneck for you then the answer is to use persistent connections. Launching a new backend is a fairly heavyweight operation in Postgres. It sounds like there may be some system-level constraints affecting the process creation rate as well, but it's silly to spend a lot of effort on this when you can so easily go around the problem. regards, tom lane