Re: New server setup

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Niels Kristian Schjødt <nielskristian(at)autouncle(dot)com>
Cc: Benjamin Krajmalnik <kraj(at)servoyant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: New server setup
Date: 2013-03-05 21:59:14
Message-ID: CAMkU=1zDyhg-bNX59D28d2PZy8_mJ0XTFa9KLzxhGpj1KK-g1g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Niels Kristian Schjødt <
nielskristian(at)autouncle(dot)com> wrote:

> Okay, thanks - but hey - if I put it at session pooling, then it says in
> the documentation: "default_pool_size: In session pooling it needs to be
> the number of max clients you want to handle at any moment". So as I
> understand it, is it true that I then have to set default_pool_size to 300
> if I have up to 300 client connections?
>

If those 300 client connections are all long-lived, then yes you need that
many in the pool. If they are short-lived connections, then you can have a
lot less as any ones over the default_pool_size will simply block until an
existing connection is closed and can be re-assigned--which won't take long
if they are short-lived connections.

And then what would the pooler then help on my performance - would that
> just be exactly like having the 300 clients connect directly to the
> database???
>

It would probably be even worse than having 300 clients connected
directly. There would be no point in using a pooler under those conditions.

Cheers,

Jeff

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Niels Kristian Schjødt 2013-03-05 23:51:42 Re: Optimize SELECT * from table WHERE foreign_key_id IN (key1, key2, key3, key4...)
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2013-03-05 21:20:32 Re: Are bitmap index scans slow to start?