Re: Any better plan for this query?..
От | Dimitri |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5482c80a0905120916p60aeb13br340fd4023e860f51@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
No, they keep connections till the end of the test. Rgds, -Dimitri On 5/12/09, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:22 +0200, Dimitri wrote: >> Robert, what I'm testing now is 256 users max. The workload is growing >> progressively from 1, 2, 4, 8 ... to 256 users. Of course the Max >> throughput is reached on the number of users equal to 2 * number of >> cores, but what's important for me here - database should continue to >> keep the workload! - response time regressing, but the troughput >> should remain near the same. >> >> So, do I really need a pooler to keep 256 users working?? - I don't >> think so, but please, correct me. > > If they disconnect and reconnect yes. If they keep the connections live > then no. > > Joshua D. Drake > > -- > PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@jabber.postgresql.org > Consulting, Development, Support, Training > 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ > The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 > >
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: