On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 14:47, mlw wrote: > Please no threading threads!!! >
Ya, I'm very pro threads but I've long since been sold on no threads for PostgreSQL. AIO on the other hand... ;) Your summary so accurately addresses the issue it should be a whole FAQ entry on threads and PostgreSQL. :) > Drawbacks to a threaded model: > > (1) One thread screws up, the whole process dies. In a multiple process > application this is not too much of an issue. > > (2) Heap fragmentation. In a long uptime application, such as a > database, heap fragmentation is an important consideration. With > multiple processes, each process manages its own heap and what ever > fragmentation that exists goes away when the connection is closed. A > threaded server is far more vulnerable because the heap has to manage > many threads and the heap has to stay active and unfragmented in > perpetuity. This is why Windows applications usually end up using 2G of > memory after 3 months of use. (Well, this AND memory leaks) These are things that can't be stressed enough. IMO, these are some of the many reasons why applications running on MS platforms tend to have much lower application and system up times (that and resources leaks which are inherent to the platform). BTW, if you do much in the way of threaded coding, there is libHorde which is a heap library for heavily threaded, memory hungry applications. It excels in performance, reduces heap lock contention (maintains multiple heaps in a very thread smart manner), and goes a long way toward reducing heap fragmentation which is common for heavily memory based, threaded applications. > (3) Stack space. In a threaded application they are more limits to stack > usage. I'm not sure, but I bet PostgreSQL would have a problem with a > fixed size stack, I know the old ODBC driver did. > Most modern thread implementations use a page guard on the stack to determine if it needs to grow or not. Generally speaking, for most modern platforms which support threading, stack considerations rarely become an issue. > (5) Lastly, why bother? Seriously? Process creation time is an issue > true, but its an issue with threads as well, just not as bad. Anyone who > is looking for performance should be using a connection pooling > mechanism as is done in things like PHP. > > I have done both threaded and process servers. The threaded servers are > easier to write. The process based severs are more robust. From an > operational point of view, a "select foo from bar where x > y" will take > he same amount of time. > I agree with this, however, using threads does open the door for things like splitting queries and sorts across multiple CPUs. Something the current process model, which was previously agreed on, would not be able to address because of cost. Example: "select foo from bar where x > y order by foo ;", could be run on multiple CPUs if the sort were large enough to justify. After it's all said and done, I do agree that threading just doesn't seem like a good fit for PostgreSQL. -- Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copeland Computer Consulting ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
