Carlos Moreno wrote:
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
Or use a dual-core system. :-)
Am I missing something?? There is just *one* instance of this idea in,
what,
four replies?? I find it so obvious, and so obviously the only solution
that
has any hope to work, that it makes me think I'm missing something ...
Is it that multiple PostgreSQL processes will end up monopolizing as many
CPU cores as you give it? (ok, that would suck, for sure :-))
PostgreSQL is process based, so if you have one query that is eating a
lot of cpu, it is only one cpu... you would have another for your render
to run on.
Joshua D. Drake
If there is a way to guarantee (or at least to encourage) that PG will
not use
more than one, or even two cores, then a quad-core machine looks like a
promising solution... One thing feels kind of certain to me: the kind of
system that the OP describes has a most-demanding need for *extremely
high* CPU power --- multi-core, or multi-CPU, would seem the better
solution anyway, since it promotes responsiveness more than raw CPU
power.
Carlos
--
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
