| From: | Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How to keep queries low latency as concurrency increases |
| Date: | 2012-10-30 14:02:28 |
| Message-ID: | 508FDDF4.2000403@optionshouse.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 10/30/2012 06:55 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Is there a good transaction-based connection pooler in Python?
> You're better off with a good pool built in to the client application
> than with a good pool running as a separate process between the
> client and the database, IMO.
Could you explain this a little more? My experience is almost always the
exact opposite, especially in large clusters that may have dozens of
servers all hitting the same database. A centralized pool has much less
duplication and can serve from a smaller pool than having 12 servers
each have 25 connections reserved in their own private pool or something.
I mean... a pool is basically a proxy server. I don't have 12 individual
proxy servers for 12 webservers.
--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com
______________________________________________
See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Віталій Тимчишин | 2012-10-30 14:03:54 | Re: Seq scan on 10million record table.. why? |
| Previous Message | Shaun Thomas | 2012-10-30 13:53:00 | Re: Seq scan on 10million record table.. why? |