Re: What setup would you choose for postgresql 9.2 installation?
От | AJ Weber |
---|---|
Тема | Re: What setup would you choose for postgresql 9.2 installation? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5134B327.9030207@comcast.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: What setup would you choose for postgresql 9.2 installation? (Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: What setup would you choose for postgresql 9.2 installation?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Great info, I really appreciate the insight. Is there a FAQ/recommended setup for running pgbench to determine where this might be? (Is there a reason to setup pgbench differently based on the server's cores/memory/etc?) Sorry if this detracts from the OP's original question. -AJ On 3/4/2013 9:36 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:04 AM, AJ Weber<aweber@comcast.net> wrote: >> Apologies for the tangential question, but how would pgpool2 "increase >> throughput"? Wouldn't the same number of statements be issued by your >> application? It would likely reduce the number of concurrent connections, >> but that doesn't necessarily equate to "increased throughput". > This is a pretty common subject. Most servers have a "peak > throughput" that occurs at some fixed number of connections. for > instance a common throughput graph of pgbench on a server might look > like this: > > conns : tps > 1 : 200 > 2 : 250 > 4 : 400 > 8 : 750 > 12 : 1200 > 16 : 2000 > 24 : 2200 > 28 : 2100 > 32 : 2000 > 40 : 1800 > 64 : 1200 > 80 : 800 > 100 : 400 > > So by concentrating your connections to be ~24 you would get maximum > throughput. Such a graph is typical for most db servers, just a > different "sweet spot" where the max throughput for a given number of > connections. Some servers fall off fast past this number, some just > slowly drop off.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: