From: David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: scaling up postgres
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:18:46 -0600
Message-ID: <4481A856.7050907@boreham.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15971.1149347558@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <200606030931.k539V38Y007877@smtp2.planet.net.tn>
<15971.1149347558@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom Lane wrote:
>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.
>
I thought the OP was talking about HTTP connections/s. He didn't say if he
was using persistent database connections or not (obviously better if so).
If it were the case that his setup is new backend launch rate-limited, then
wouldn't the machine show CPU saturation ? (he said it didn't).
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: david_list@boreham.org
Subject: Re: scaling up postgres
In-Reply-To: <4481A856.7050907@boreham.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox