| From: | "Matt Clark" <matt(at)ymogen(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Martin Foster'" <martin(at)ethereal-realms(dot)org>, "'Kevin Barnard'" <kevin(dot)barnard(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'PostgreSQL Performance'" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Restricting Postgres |
| Date: | 2004-11-04 16:33:33 |
| Message-ID: | 002e01c4c28c$06e83df0$8300a8c0@solent |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
> Apache::DBI overall works better to what I require, even if
> it is not a
> pool per sey. Now if pgpool supported variable rate pooling like
> Apache does with it's children, it might help to even things
> out. That
> and you'd still get the spike if you have to start the webserver and
> database server at or around the same time.
I still don't quite get it though - you shouldn't be getting more than one
child per second being launched by Apache, so that's only one PG postmaster
per second, which is really a trivial load. That is unless you have
'StartServers' set high, in which case the 'obvious' answer is to lower it.
Are you launching multiple DB connections per Apache process as well?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew Nuzum | 2004-11-04 16:37:42 | Re: Restricting Postgres |
| Previous Message | Richard_D_Levine | 2004-11-04 16:27:24 | Re: Selecting a random row |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew Nuzum | 2004-11-04 16:37:42 | Re: Restricting Postgres |
| Previous Message | Martin Foster | 2004-11-04 16:15:12 | Re: Restricting Postgres |