Message-ID: <4641DAE4.4020805@mochima.com>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 10:29:56 -0400
From: Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Griscom <griscom@suitable.com>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Throttling PostgreSQL's CPU usage
References: <20070509055655.D4C24DCC04A@svr2.hagander.net>
	<p06240802c2677e4804b2@[192.168.1.8]>
In-Reply-To: <p06240802c2677e4804b2@[192.168.1.8]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Daniel Griscom wrote:
> Thanks again for all the feedback. Running on a dual processor/core 
> machine is clearly a first step, and I'll look into the other 
> suggestions as well.

As per one of the last suggestions, do consider as well putting a dual 
hard disk
(as in, independent hard disks, to allow for simultaneous access to 
both).  That
way, you can send the WAL (px_log directory) to a separate physical drive
and improve performance (reduce the potential for bottlenecks) if there 
is a
considerable amount of writes.  With Windows, you can mount specific
directories to given HD partitions --- that would do the trick.

Also, of course, do make sure that you give it a generous amount of RAM, so
that an as-large-as-possible fraction of the read operations are done 
directly
off the machine's memory.

BTW, have you considered using a *separate* machine for PostgreSQL?
(that way this machine could be running on Linux or some Unix flavor,
and the Windows machine is dedicated to the ActiveX rendering stuff).
I mean, if you are going to get a new machine because you need to replace
it, you might as well get a new machine not as powerful, since now you
will have the dual-CPU given by the fact that there are two machines.

Good luck!

Carlos
--