On 11/15/2016 07:39 AM, Moreno Andreo wrote:
Sorry for late reply... i'm in some quite rough days....
Il 08/11/2016 21:28, Adrian Klaver ha scritto:
On 11/08/2016 12:13 PM, Moreno Andreo wrote:
[...]
In your experience, would this approach help me lower server load?
Are there any other approach I can try?
Instead of pushing why not pull.
Excuse me Adrian, but I can't get what you mean by not pushing but pulling.
We are now pulling data from clients for about everything we need...
what I'd like to do is either
- the database pushes updates when needed,
Pushes updates of what, the statistics you talking about or other data?
or
- the client pulls data from database, but querying a reduced dataset
(just a row values with all values for that user and not thousands of rows)
This confuses me given from your OP:
" 350 databases, 350 users, every user connects to his own database and
his teammates' (max 10 in total) so each user can connect to max 10
databases at a time"
"This is obtained, at the moment, with a select count(*) from ..... (that
involves 4 joins on 4 tables) to be run run every 20 secs from each
client connected to the cluster (ATM about 650 clients configured, about
200 concurrent) to each database it has rights to connect."
So does the user need only their data or do they need the other users
data also?
In other words do the users really check/need the statistics every 20
secs?
Ideally, I need a real value to be read when that value changes. But on
Earth I'm happy with a consistent value (If it should be 800 and it
reads 799 it's not an earthquake) at least on a regular basis. This
means that if there's no activity, we will be uselessly polling the
database, so here's why I thought about "pushing" data from backend to
client, that would be the nearest to ideal solution.
Given that you say exact is not important over the course of day, why
not create a mechanism for the user to poll the database when they
need the information.
This is what we did in the past. The result was that users _did not_
update values (clicking an "update" button) and made disasters working
with "old" data (they forgot to do it, they didn't want to do it because
How can they be working with 'old' data? The queries you are running are
compiling stats on data that exist at the time they are run and at any
point in time between stats runs the user is working with current data
regardless of what the last stats say.
"it's another click, I waste my time", and so many, even stupid,
excuses... but they're the customers, they pay, and here we say that
"customer is always right")
Except when they are wrong:) Still been there.
So we changed: now we check for values and for data (not every 20 but
60 seconds... I just checked the right value). I need something that's
lighter for the DB backend, at least for the values procedure. If we had
only a database, I think that queries and datasets would be stuck in
cache, so response times would be faster. With more than 350 databases,
that's not possible (or we have to grow RAM size to values very big...)
I've also thought about using LISTEN/NOTIFY to send value updates to
client only when needed, but with NPgSQL I read that we need to keep an
open connection, and that's not a good idea AFAIK.
Thanks
Moreno
If more details are needed, just ask.
Thanks in advance and sorry for the long message (but I had to explain
such a complex thing)
Moreno.-
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
