> And because common queries can be processed within fractions of a millisecond, often 500 busy connections can be handled by a few cores.
If even 500 (out of 4500) connections are busy, what's the catch? Isn't this just a lot of scheduled CPU work trying to run concurrently when it would be faster if queued? Fast NVMe IO, or the fact that the queries are a few ms each, are just factors that makes the workload more CPU intensive (vs IO bound), the scenario would be more plausible if you had slow disks :)
I guess being bottlenecked by the network can be one scenario if your DB and app aren't close and/or your queries involve bulk data like GIS shapes...
If even 500 (out of 4500) connections are busy, what's the catch? Isn't this just a lot of scheduled CPU work trying to run concurrently when it would be faster if queued? Fast NVMe IO, or the fact that the queries are a few ms each, are just factors that makes the workload more CPU intensive (vs IO bound), the scenario would be more plausible if you had slow disks :)
I guess being bottlenecked by the network can be one scenario if your DB and app aren't close and/or your queries involve bulk data like GIS shapes...