On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Dimitris Karampinas
wrote:
> I want to bypass any disk bottleneck so I store all the data in ramfs (the
> purpose the project is to profile pg so I don't care for data loss if
> anything goes wrong).
> Since my data are memory resident, I thought the size of the s
I want to bypass any disk bottleneck so I store all the data in ramfs (the
purpose the project is to profile pg so I don't care for data loss if
anything goes wrong).
Since my data are memory resident, I thought the size of the shared buffers
wouldn't play much role, yet I have to admit that I saw
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Dimitris Karampinas wrote:
> Thanks for your answers. A script around pstack worked for me.
>
> (I'm not sure if I should open a new thread, I hope it's OK to ask another
> question here)
>
> For the workload I run it seems that PostgreSQL scales with the number of
Dne 23.5.2014 16:41 "Dimitris Karampinas" napsal(a):
>
> Thanks for your answers. A script around pstack worked for me.
>
> (I'm not sure if I should open a new thread, I hope it's OK to ask
another question here)
>
> For the workload I run it seems that PostgreSQL scales with the number of
concur
Thanks for your answers. A script around pstack worked for me.
(I'm not sure if I should open a new thread, I hope it's OK to ask another
question here)
For the workload I run it seems that PostgreSQL scales with the number of
concurrent clients up to the point that these reach the number of core
