Re: Database block lifecycle
От | pinker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Database block lifecycle |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 53EA9A94.208@onet.eu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Database block lifecycle (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Database block lifecycle
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Ok, I wasn't precisely enough, you are right. It's brand new server, nothing is yet configured and we have not even os installed. The number was the overall count we expect for a whole cluster. But the main question is: is it possible to completely avoid disk read if there is huge amount of RAM available? Am 13.08.2014 00:39, schrieb John R Pierce: > On 8/12/2014 3:29 PM, pinker wrote: >> yes, I know the count is quite high. It is the max value we've >> estimated, but probably on average day it will be 100-200, and yes we >> use pgpool. > > > if you're using a pooler, then why would you be using 200 concurrent > connections, unless you have a 50 or 100 CPU cores/threads ? > > if you have 1000 transactions to execute on a 32 core server, and you > try and do 200 at once, it will take longer than if you do 64 at a > time and let the rest queue up. >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: