Message-ID: <4640FA6E.4050003@mochima.com>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 18:32:14 -0400
From: Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Throttling PostgreSQL's CPU usage
References: <p0624080bc266892a91b2@[192.168.1.8]>
	<20070508205120.GA7983@uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <20070508205120.GA7983@uio.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Steinar H. Gunderson 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 ...

Is it that multiple PostgreSQL processes will end up monopolizing as many
CPU cores as you give it?  (ok, that would suck, for sure  :-))

If there is a way to guarantee (or at least to encourage) that PG will 
not use
more than one, or even two cores, then a quad-core machine looks like a
promising solution...  One thing feels kind of certain to me:  the kind of
system that the OP describes has a most-demanding need for *extremely
high* CPU power --- multi-core, or multi-CPU, would seem the better
solution anyway, since it promotes responsiveness more than raw CPU
power.

Carlos
--