| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Niels Kristian Schjødt <nielskristian(at)autouncle(dot)com>, Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New server setup |
| Date: | 2013-03-05 17:10:21 |
| Message-ID: | CAOR=d=3_KXQnE9PwMnmGJaVQ_8EVZietjjra1XR7iU2n8FDxKw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> Niels Kristian Schjødt <nielskristian(at)autouncle(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> So my question is, should I also get something like pgpool2 setup
>> at the same time? Is it, from your experience, likely to increase
>> my throughput a lot more, if I had a connection pool of eg. 20
>> connections, instead of 300 concurrent ones directly?
>
> In my experience, it can make a big difference. If you are just
> using the pooler for this reason, and don't need any of the other
> features of pgpool, I suggest pgbouncer. It is a simpler, more
> lightweight tool.
I second the pgbouncer rec.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Niels Kristian Schjødt | 2013-03-05 17:11:48 | Re: New server setup |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-03-05 16:34:04 | Re: New server setup |