Re: Réf
От | Rod Taylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Réf |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1112814112.92363.130.camel@home обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Réf (Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 14:40 -0400, Alex Turner wrote: > I think his point was that 9 * 4 != 2400 Oh.. heh.. I didn't even notice that. Can I pretend I did it in my head using HEX math and that it wasn't a mistake? > On Apr 6, 2005 2:23 PM, Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca> wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 19:42 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:18:29PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: > > > > Yeah, I think that can be done provided there is more than one worker. > > > > My limit seems to be about 1000 transactions per second each with a > > > > single insert for a single process (round trip time down the Fibre > > > > Channel is large) but running 4 simultaneously only drops throughput to > > > > about 900 per process (total of 2400 transactions per second) and the > > > > machine still seemed to have lots of oomph to spare. > > > > > > Erm, have I missed something here? 900 * 4 = 2400? > > > > Nope. You've not missed anything. > > > > If I ran 10 processes and the requirement would be met. > > -- > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > > --
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: