Re: Any better plan for this query?..

On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 20:34 -0400, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> * Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> [090512 19:27]:
>
> > Apache solved this problem back when it was still called NSCA HTTPD. Why
> > aren't we preforking again?
>
> Of course, preforking and connection pooling are totally different
> beast...
>

Yes and no. They both solve similar problems and preforking solves more
problems when you look at the picture in entirety (namely authentication
integration etc..)

> But, what really does preforking give us? A 2 or 3% improvement?

It depends on the problem we are solving. We can test it but I would bet
it is more than that especially in a high velocity environment.

> The
> forking isn't the expensive part,

It is expensive but not as expensive as the below.

> the per-database setup that happens is
> the expensive setup... All pre-forking would save us is a tiny part of
> the initial setup, and in turn make our robust postmaster controller no
> longer have control.

I don't buy this. Properly coded we aren't going to lose any "control".

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997