From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Abdullah Ergin <abdullaherginwork(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgresql - Pgbouncer Connection and Query Performance Problem |
Date: | 2024-04-03 06:24:47 |
Message-ID: | bf84d8ea3086056bcd19aa6fa04d9d894c7f8102.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 17:04 +0300, Abdullah Ergin wrote:
> [large connection pool size]
> Thank you for the information. What would you recommend as the value
> for this parameter? Would 100 be too large of a number? Or maybe 50?
That depends entirely on your hardware and the database workload.
Perhaps reading this article can help you:
https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com/en/estimating-connection-pool-size-with-postgresql-database-statistics/
> Additionally, before lowering these parameters, I had a lot of "LWLocks"
> in my database. Normally, I know that these lightweight locks don't cause
> significant issues, but during the slowdown, I was consistently seeing
> 70-80 LWLocks. After lowering the parameters and restarting pooling,
> these locks disappeared. Is there any correlation?
Very likely yes.
If you see many LWLocks, that will cause a significant performance issue.
Essentially, it is contention inside the database.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jaya kumar | 2024-04-03 09:55:23 | About Autovacuum Query |
Previous Message | Dan Smith | 2024-04-02 20:09:37 | Re: Deadlock |