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
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? |