From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance under contention
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 03:18:50 +0100
Message-ID: <iccjub$bn0$1@dough.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CE9773D0200002500037CA6@gw.wicourts.gov>
References: <4CE9773D0200002500037CA6@gw.wicourts.gov>
On 11/22/10 02:47, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Ivan Voras wrote:
>
>> After 16 clients (which is still good since there are only 12
>> "real" cores in the system), the performance drops sharply
>
> Yet another data point to confirm the importance of connection
> pooling. :-)
I agree, connection pooling will get rid of the symptom. But not the
underlying problem. I'm not saying that having 1000s of connections to
the database is a particularly good design, only that there shouldn't be
a sharp decline in performance when it does happen. Ideally, the
performance should remain the same as it was at its peek.
I've been monitoring the server some more and it looks like there are
periods where almost all servers are in the semwait state followed by
periods of intensive work - approximately similar to the "thundering
herd" problem, or maybe to what Josh Berkus has posted a few days ago.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: ivoras@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Performance under contention
In-Reply-To: <iccjub$bn0$1@dough.gmane.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