Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CFCE9FB58F for ; Tue, 8 May 2007 19:39:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 81427-02 for ; Tue, 8 May 2007 19:39:48 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-254.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.254]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 890C39FB647 for ; Tue, 8 May 2007 19:39:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (or-67-76-146-141.sta.embarqhsd.net [67.76.146.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l48MdfOj011817; Tue, 8 May 2007 15:39:41 -0700 Message-ID: <4640FC3B.3000608@commandprompt.com> Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 15:39:55 -0700 From: "Joshua D. Drake" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070403) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carlos Moreno CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Throttling PostgreSQL's CPU usage References: <20070508205120.GA7983@uio.no> <4640FA6E.4050003@mochima.com> In-Reply-To: <4640FA6E.4050003@mochima.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.5, clamav-milter version 0.88.5 on projects.commandprompt.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (lists.commandprompt.com [192.168.2.159]); Tue, 08 May 2007 15:39:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200705/150 X-Sequence-Number: 24540 Carlos Moreno wrote: > 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 :-)) PostgreSQL is process based, so if you have one query that is eating a lot of cpu, it is only one cpu... you would have another for your render to run on. Joshua D. Drake > > 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 > -- > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/