Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 00:40:05 +0200
From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Throttling PostgreSQL's CPU usage
Message-ID: <20070508224004.GA8878@uio.no>
Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
References: <p0624080bc266892a91b2@[192.168.1.8]>
	<20070508205120.GA7983@uio.no> <4640FA6E.4050003@mochima.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4640FA6E.4050003@mochima.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 06:32:14PM -0400, Carlos Moreno wrote:
>> Or use a dual-core system. :-)
> Am I missing something??  There is just *one* instance of this idea in,
> what, four replies??  I find it so obvious, and so obviously the only
> solution that has any hope to work, that it makes me think I'm missing
> something ...

Actually, it should be added that this suggestion was only partially
tongue-in-cheek. I wrote a 3D application as part of an internship a couple
of years ago, and it had a problem that worked vaguely like the given
scenario: Adding a background task (in this case the task that loaded in new
pieces of terrain) would kill the framerate for the user, but nicing down
(actually, down-prioritizing, as this was on Windows) the back-end would
starve it completely of cycles. The solution was to just define that this
would only be run on multiprocessor systems, where both tasks would chug
along nicely :-)

/* Steinar */
-- 
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/