Re: Any better plan for this query?..
От | Matthew Wakeling |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.00.0905121553370.2341@aragorn.flymine.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. (Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>) |
Ответы |
Re: Any better plan for this query?..
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 12 May 2009, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > But what I get from your answer is that you are basically doing one > connect/disconnect per client and the testcase you are talking about has 256 > clients? Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't connect operations be all handled by a single thread - the parent postmaster? There's your scalability problem right there. Also, spawning a new backend process is an awful lot of overhead to run just one query. As far as I can see, it's quite understandable for MySQL to perform better than PostgreSQL in these circumstances, as it has a smaller simpler backend to start up each time. If you really want to get a decent performance out of Postgres, then use long-lived connections (which most real-world use cases will do) and prepare your queries in advance with parameters. Matthew -- import oz.wizards.Magic; if (Magic.guessRight())... -- Computer Science Lecturer
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: