Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4 - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Gregory Stark
Subject Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Date
Msg-id 87fxhd33qb.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4  ("Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>)
Responses Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4  ("Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>)
List pgsql-performance
"Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM> writes:

> Generally when there is dead constant.. signs of classic bottleneck ;-)  We
> will be fixing one to get to another.. but knocking bottlenecks is the name of
> the game I think

Indeed. I think the bottleneck we're interested in addressing here is why you
say you weren't able to saturate the 64 threads with 64 processes when they're
all RAM-resident.

From what I see you still have 400+ processes? Is that right?

--
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres benchmarking with pgbench
Next
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres benchmarking with pgbench