Re: getting the most of out multi-core systems for repeated complex SELECT statements

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, gnuoytr(at)rcn(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: getting the most of out multi-core systems for repeated complex SELECT statements
Date: 2011-02-04 04:04:09
Message-ID: AANLkTi=P5Fa1rY3zH8UOjNCm-gdBpCjuStnBs8jdg1jY@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Andy Colson wrote:
>>
>> Cpu's wont get faster, but HD's and SSD's will.  To have one database
>> connection, which runs one query, run fast, it's going to need multi-core
>> support.
>
> My point was that situations where people need to run one query on one
> database connection that aren't in fact limited by disk I/O are far less
> common than people think.  My troublesome database servers aren't ones with
> a single CPU at its max but wishing there were more workers, they're the
> ones that have >25% waiting for I/O.  And even that crowd is still a subset,
> distinct from people who don't care about the speed of any one core, they
> need lots of connections to go at once.

The most common case where I can use > 1 core is loading data. and
pg_restore supports parallel restore threads, so that takes care of
that pretty well.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2011-02-04 04:10:41 Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Previous Message Greg Smith 2011-02-04 04:00:24 Re: getting the most of out multi-core systems for repeated complex SELECT statements