| From: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Réf |
| Date: | 2005-04-06 18:23:10 |
| Message-ID: | 1112811790.92363.123.camel@home |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 19:42 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:18:29PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > Yeah, I think that can be done provided there is more than one worker.
> > My limit seems to be about 1000 transactions per second each with a
> > single insert for a single process (round trip time down the Fibre
> > Channel is large) but running 4 simultaneously only drops throughput to
> > about 900 per process (total of 2400 transactions per second) and the
> > machine still seemed to have lots of oomph to spare.
>
> Erm, have I missed something here? 900 * 4 = 2400?
Nope. You've not missed anything.
If I ran 10 processes and the requirement would be met.
--
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mischa | 2005-04-06 18:35:53 | Re: Plan for relatively simple query seems to be very inefficient |
| Previous Message | Alex Turner | 2005-04-06 18:18:21 | Re: RE : RE: Postgresql vs SQLserver for thisapplication ? |