> On 07/07/2015 08:05 PM, Craig James wrote: >> >> >> No ideas, but I ran into the same thing. I have a set of C/C++ functions >> that put some chemistry calculations into Postgres as extensions (things >> like, "calculate the molecular weight of this molecule"). As SQL >> functions, the whole thing bogged down, and we never got the scalability >> we needed. On our 8-CPU setup, we couldn't get more than 2 CPUs busy at >> the same time, even with dozens of clients. Hi all, The sample code / results were put up last night at http://github.com/gbb/ppppt Craig's problem sounds similar to my own, assuming he means running C indirectly via SQL vs running C more directly. Lots of parallel connections to postgres but maximum 2 CPUs of scaling (and it gets worse, as you try to run more things). Tom Lane has posted an interesting comment over on the bugs list which identies a likely source at least one of the problems, maybe both. It seems to be linked to internal locking inside postgres (which makes sense, given the results - both problems feel 'lock-y'). Also, he mentions a workaround for some functions that scales to 8-way apparently. http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/31265.1436317984@xxxxxxxxxxxxx I think it's potentially a big problem for CPU intensive postgres libraries like pgrouting, or perhaps the postgis & postgis raster functions, things like that. I don't know how well their functions are marked for e.g. immutability. Are there any postgis devs on this list? Graeme Bell -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
