From: | Francisco Reyes <lists(at)natserv(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Markus Bertheau <twanger(at)bluetwanger(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Novice <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: appropriate sort_mem & shared buffers |
Date: | 2001-12-31 18:02:43 |
Message-ID: | 20011231125357.F2831-100000@zoraida.natserv.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I was thinking that the higher the
> > buffer size the longer it would take for the database to allocate the
> > memory before it can serve the query.
>
> No. The shared buffers are a static allocation that is made once when
> the postmaster starts.
The web site is using PHP so a connection is stablished every time. The
little I have read little about permanent(persistent?) connections seems
so will look into that later. After this is in production I will start
looking at the archives of the pgsql-php list to see the current state of
php permanent connections.
So if PHP is stablishing a new connection every time isn't a new instance
of the backend, toghether with the overhead of allocating memory space,
been started?
On the apache web server one can have a few instances running waiting for
requests. Can that be done with pgsql, or does it even make sense to have
such arrangement on pgsql?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kris-Jon Fenton | 2002-01-02 05:11:04 | Random Select from PostgreSQL db |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-12-31 17:13:12 | Re: appropriate sort_mem & shared buffers |