Excellent. Thanks I'll buy and read that book :)
Thanks! -----Mensaje original----- De: Craig Ringer [mailto:cr...@postnewspapers.com.au] Enviado el: viernes, 10 de junio de 2011 09:13 a.m. Para: Anibal David Acosta CC: t...@fuzzy.cz; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] how much postgres can scale up? On 06/10/2011 08:56 PM, Anibal David Acosta wrote: > The version is Postgres 9.0 > Yes, I setup the postgres.conf according to instructions in the > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tuning_Your_PostgreSQL_Server > > > Cool, I will check this > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Logging_Difficult_Queries > > Looks like great starting point to find bottleneck > > But so, Is possible in excellent conditions that two connections duplicate > the quantity of transactions per second? For two connections, if you have most of the data cached in RAM or you have lots of fast disks, then sure. For that matter, if they're synchronized scans of the same table then the second transaction might perform even faster than the first one! There are increasing overheads with transaction synchronization, etc with number of connections, and they'll usually land up contending for system resources like RAM (for disk cache, work_mem, etc), disk I/O, and CPU time. So you won't generally get linear scaling with number of connections. Greg Smith has done some excellent and detailed work on this. I highly recommend reading his writing, and you should consider buying his recent book "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance". See also: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Performance_Optimization There have been lots of postgresql scaling benchmarks done over time, too. You'll find a lot of information if you look around the wiki and Google. -- Craig Ringer -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
