From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Matt Clark <matt(at)ymogen(dot)net> |
Cc: | Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Caching of Queries |
Date: | 2004-10-01 15:13:03 |
Message-ID: | 20041001151303.GU1297@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 06:43:42AM +0100, Matt Clark wrote:
>
> >If you're not using a connection pool of some kind then you might as
> >well forget query plan caching, because your connect overhead will swamp
> >the planning cost. This does not mean you have to use something like
> >pgpool (which makes some rather questionable claims IMO); any decent web
> >application language/environment will support connection pooling.
> >
> >
> Hmm, a question of definition - there's a difference between a pool and
> a persistent connection. Pretty much all web apps have one connection
> per process, which is persistent (i.e. not dropped and remade for each
> request), but not shared between processes, therefore not pooled.
OK, that'd work too... the point is if you're re-connecting all the time
it doesn't really matter what else you do for performance.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matt Clark | 2004-10-01 15:46:59 | Re: Caching of Queries |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2004-10-01 14:43:05 | Re: inconsistent/weird index usage |