| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Date: | 2009-05-12 18:46:57 |
| Message-ID: | 1242154017.3843.294.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 11:30 -0700, Scott Carey wrote:
> the fact is there is no evidence that a connection pooler will fix the
> scalability from 16 > 32 cores.
There has been much analysis over a number of years of the effects of
the ProcArrayLock, specifically the O(N^2) effect of increasing numbers
of connections on GetSnapshotData(). Most discussion has been on
-hackers, not -perform.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-05-12 18:47:21 | AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem |
| Previous Message | Scott Carey | 2009-05-12 18:30:04 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |