Re: Réf

From: Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>
Cc: "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Réf
Date: 2005-04-06 18:40:29
Message-ID: 33c6269f0504061140363ac662@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

I think his point was that 9 * 4 != 2400

Alex Turner
netEconomist

On Apr 6, 2005 2:23 PM, Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> wrote:
> 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.
> --
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

In response to

  • Re: Réf at 2005-04-06 18:23:10 from Rod Taylor

Responses

  • Re: Réf at 2005-04-06 19:01:52 from Rod Taylor

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mischa 2005-04-06 18:46:39 COPY Hacks (WAS: RE: Postgresql vs SQLserver for this application ?)
Previous Message Mischa 2005-04-06 18:35:53 Re: Plan for relatively simple query seems to be very inefficient