From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Monitoring number of backends |
Date: | 2013-10-23 02:11:17 |
Message-ID: | 20131023021117.GJ2706@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
* John R Pierce (pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com) wrote:
> On 10/22/2013 1:13 PM, andy wrote:
> >No, actually, I don't think my connect overhead is huge. My
> >apache and postgres are on the same box, and it connects using
> >unix socket. Perhaps if my apache on db were on different boxes it
> >would be a problem.
>
> each postgres connection, if you're not using a pool, requires a
> fork() of the postgres process. fork is inherently an expensive
> process, especially for a moderately large and fairly complex piece
> of software like postgresql.
As Tom points out, it's really PG that makes the new connections slow;
fork(), while it can be slow on some platforms, really is small potatos
compared to PG opening a database, populating caches, etc.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John R Pierce | 2013-10-23 02:37:45 | Re: ISO8859_1 vs UTF-8 Performance? |
Previous Message | BladeOfLight16 | 2013-10-23 02:09:06 | Re: Bug? Function with side effects not evaluated in CTE |