From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | jarek <jarek(at)poczta(dot)srv(dot)pl>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Big number of connections |
Date: | 2016-04-03 17:18:59 |
Message-ID: | 57015083.50707@BlueTreble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 4/1/16 2:54 AM, jarek wrote:
> I'll be happy to hear form users of big PostgreSQL installations, how
> many users do you have and what kind of problems we may expect.
> Is there any risk, that huge number of roles will slowdown overall
> performance ?
The red flag from your original email was concern over each connection
consuming 1MB of memory. If you're so tight on memory that you can't
afford 4GB of backend-local data, then I don't think you'll be happy
with any method of trying to handle 4000 concurrent connections.
Assuming you're on decent sized hardware though, 3000-4000 open
connections shouldn't be much of an issue *as long as very few are
active at once*. If you get into a situation where there's a surge of
activity and you suddenly have 2x more active connections than cores,
you won't be happy. I've seen that push servers into a state where the
only way to recover was to disconnect everyone.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mike Sofen | 2016-04-04 13:14:36 | Re: Big number of connections |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-04-03 17:13:56 | Re: Clarification on using pg_upgrade |