Re: Connections per second?
От | Ian Harding |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Connections per second? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | scc52a81.002@mail.tpchd.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Connections per second? (Alejandro Fernandez <ale@electronic-group.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
And aolserver is another. It will let you write modules in C so you don't have to take the TCL interpreter hit, small thoughit is. - Ian >>> Doug McNaught <doug@wireboard.com> 04/23/02 09:16AM >>> Alejandro Fernandez <ale@e-group.org> writes: > Hi, > > I'm writing a small but must-be-fast cgi program that for each hit > it gets, it reads an indexed table in a postgres database and writes > a log to a file based on the result. Any idea how many hits a second > I can get to before things start crashing, or queuing up too much, > etc? And will postgres be one of the first to fall? Do any of you > think it can handle 2000 hits a second (what I think I could get at > peak times) - and what would it need to do so? Persistent > connections? Are there any examples or old threads on writing a > similar program in C with libpq? Doing it as CGI is going to have two big performance penalties: 1) Kernel and system overhead for starting of a new process per hit, plus interpreter startup if you're using a scripting language 2) Overhead in Postgres for creating a database connection from scratch Doing it in C will only eliminate the interpreter startup. You really want a non-CGI solution (such as mod_perl) and you really want persistent connections (Apache::DBI is one solution that works with mod_perl). Java servlets with a connection pooling library would also work. -Doug ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: