| From: | "Y Sidhu" <ysidhu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Database connection for Tbl_B established |
| Date: | 2007-05-30 23:36:50 |
| Message-ID: | b09064f30705301636m16f0f80x21bd4be924cc812e@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
You are referring to pgpool? BTW, thanks for this insight.
Yudhvir
========
On 5/30/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> "Y Sidhu" <ysidhu(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > The question is: Is this method of repeatedly establishing and
> > re-establishing database connections with the same 3 tables efficient?
>
> No. Launching a new backend process is a fairly expensive proposition;
> if you're striving for performance you don't want to do it for just one
> or two queries. Look into connection pooling ...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Yudhvir Singh Sidhu
408 375 3134 cell
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rajesh Kumar Mallah | 2007-05-31 01:54:40 | Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-30 22:32:11 | Re: Database connection for Tbl_B established |