Re: [SQL] concurrent connections is worse than serialization?

2002-08-14 Thread Wei Weng
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 05:18, Richard Huxton wrote: On Tuesday 13 Aug 2002 9:39 pm, Wei Weng wrote: I have a testing program that uses 30 concurrent connections (max_connections = 32 in my postgresql.conf) and each does 100 insertions to a simple table with index. It took me

Re: [SQL] concurrent connections is worse than serialization?

2002-08-14 Thread Richard Huxton
On Wednesday 14 Aug 2002 3:20 pm, Wei Weng wrote: On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 05:18, Richard Huxton wrote: On Tuesday 13 Aug 2002 9:39 pm, Wei Weng wrote: [30 connections is much slower than 1 connection 30 times] What was the limiting factor during the test? Was the CPU maxed, memory, disk

Re: [SQL] concurrent connections is worse than serialization?

2002-08-14 Thread Wei Weng
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 10:49, Richard Huxton wrote: On Wednesday 14 Aug 2002 3:20 pm, Wei Weng wrote: On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 05:18, Richard Huxton wrote: On Tuesday 13 Aug 2002 9:39 pm, Wei Weng wrote: [30 connections is much slower than 1 connection 30 times] Yeah, but the problem is,

Re: [SQL] concurrent connections is worse than serialization?

2002-08-14 Thread Tom Lane
Wei Weng [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 10:49, Richard Huxton wrote: If it's not CPU, is the system going into swap or are you seeing a lot of disk activity? I did hear a lot of disk noise when I ran the test. How do I tell if the system is going into swap? Try running

Re: [SQL] concurrent connections is worse than serialization?

2002-08-14 Thread Richard Huxton
On Wednesday 14 Aug 2002 4:29 pm, Wei Weng wrote: [30 connections is much slower than 1 connection 30 times] Yeah, but the problem is, say I have 20 users using select on the database at the same time, and each select takes 10 seconds to finish. I really can't queue them up (or the last