| From: | David Gauthier <davegauthierpg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Estimated resources for a 500 connections instance (VM) |
| Date: | 2020-04-07 19:51:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAMBRECC+1Z2bguc9cKnFUsJu2KoPeHjnr6P6NeqK1MRCZHoTOQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
After looking at some of the factors that can affect this, I think it may
be important to know that most of the connections will be almost idle (in
terms of interacting with the DB). The "users" are perl/dbi scripts which
connect to the DB and spend the vast majority of the time doing things
other than interacting with the DB. So a connection is consumed, but it's
not really working very hard with the DB per-se. I am cleaning up some of
that code by strategically connecting/disconnecting only when a DB
interaction is required. But for my edification, is it roughly true that 2
connections working with the DB 100% of the time is equivalent to 20
connections @ 10% = 200 connections @ 1 % (if you know what I mean) ?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sándor Daku | 2020-04-07 20:23:15 | Re: Estimated resources for a 500 connections instance (VM) |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2020-04-07 17:26:22 | Re: Performance degradation if query returns no rows and column expression is used after upgrading to 12 |