Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 14:57:48 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Dan Harris <fbsd@drivefaster.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: large dataset with write vs read clients
Message-ID: <20101007185748.GZ26232@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <AANLkTimNJc=0ffgRO_gO6Vsq06=aqBYXZouhbv0kBe-i@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CAE1192.5080807@drivefaster.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="q//942cwY0lD3Qrv"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4CAE1192.5080807@drivefaster.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)


--q//942cwY0lD3Qrv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Dan Harris (fbsd@drivefaster.net) wrote:
>  On 10/7/10 11:47 AM, Aaron Turner wrote:
>> Basically, each connection is taking about 100MB resident.  As we need
>> to increase the number of threads to be able to query all the devices
>> in the 5 minute window, we're running out of memory.
> I think the first thing to do is look into using a connection pooler =20
> like pgpool to reduce your connection memory overhead.

Yeah..  Having the number of database connections be close to the number
of processors is usually recommended.

	Stephen

--q//942cwY0lD3Qrv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkyuGCwACgkQrzgMPqB3kigQUQCfYkWKsDz0+IZvvm+MMetS7AWK
oysAn2Hy46gCldKTUwXRIy2DZnAS2sTr
=u67x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--q//942cwY0lD3Qrv--