Re: Forking vs. Threading
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Forking vs. Threading |
Дата | |
Msg-id | DE9C70CB-79B8-11D8-AFE3-000A95AB279E@samurai.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Forking vs. Threading (Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar@frodo.hserus.net>) |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On 19-Mar-04, at 9:08 AM, Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > Bryan Encina wrote: >> MySQL and Firebird use threads and Postgres forks. Forking is ok, >> unless you have many database connections. The more connections the >> more processes. I noticed while profiling an application that every >> connection alone was taking over 1MB of memory. This based on the >> process per connection gripe I have. > > Umm.. Notcied how much of that 1MB is shared? Also, I'd expect that the amount of memory that a busy installation should be devoting to caching I/O (whether done by the DBMS or the kernel) will dwarf the amount of memory each backend has allocated privately. Assuming the kernel implements COW (which is reasonable, of course), I don't think the overall difference in memory footprint should be very significant -- or rather, if it is, it results from something other than the choice between threads and fork(). -Neil
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: