>>>"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" said:
> On Thursday 16 January 2003 11:59, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrot
> > On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 17:42, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > > We are also looking at hardware solutions, multi-CPU PCs with tons (24GB
> > > of memory. I know that memory will improve access if it prevents
> > > swapping but how well does PostgreSQL utilize multiple CPUs?
> > At most one CPU is used for any single postgres backend (that means for
> > any single database connection). So, if your load problem is single
> > queries being too slow, thee's nothing you can do with adding more CPUs.
> > If your problem is many connections maxing out the db, PostgreSQL can
> > take full advantage of multiple CPUs.
> I most definitely have multiple queries running at once. My main issue is
> whether PostgreSQL scales up properly or does it get bogged down with too
> many locked queries.
That would depend on the OS. Not many 'pc-based unix' support over 4 GB of
memory, some don't even go that far.
If memory is an issue, have you considered going to 64bit CPU?
Memory is indeed an issue for a complex database setup, especially if you want
to give the backends enough shared and sort memory.
As already said, PostgreSQL will utilize multiple CPUs - as effectively as
your OS can do this of course. PostgreSQL is not an OS by itself and does not
really control these resources.
I have also found it very helpful to split database from application servers
(wish I do it as often as I recommend it :) - thus you can optimize the part
that needs most resources.. In many cases the requirements are quite
different. With todays gigabit LANs, bandwidth between machines shouldn't be
By the way, I too wonder which supported OS platform would support over 4GB of
memory on a PC..
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?