From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance under contention
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:38:28 +0100
Message-ID: <ice2pd$ae8$1@dough.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CEA373D0200002500037CED@gw.wicourts.gov>
References: <4CE9773D0200002500037CA6@gw.wicourts.gov>
<iccjub$bn0$1@dough.gmane.org>
<4CEA373D0200002500037CED@gw.wicourts.gov>
On 11/22/10 16:26, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Ivan Voras<ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> On 11/22/10 02:47, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> Ivan Voras wrote:
>>>
>>>> After 16 clients (which is still good since there are only 12
>>>> "real" cores in the system), the performance drops sharply
>>>
>>> Yet another data point to confirm the importance of connection
>>> pooling. :-)
>>
>> I agree, connection pooling will get rid of the symptom. But not
>> the underlying problem. I'm not saying that having 1000s of
>> connections to the database is a particularly good design, only
>> that there shouldn't be a sharp decline in performance when it
>> does happen. Ideally, the performance should remain the same as it
>> was at its peek.
>
> Well, I suggested that we add an admission control[1] mechanism,
It looks like a hack (and one which is already implemented by connection
pool software); the underlying problem should be addressed.
But on the other hand if it's affecting so many people, maybe a warning
comment in postgresql.conf around max_connections would be helpful.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: ivoras@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Performance under contention
In-Reply-To: <ice2pd$ae8$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