| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bob Dusek <redusek(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: performance config help |
| Date: | 2010-01-13 20:43:29 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d11001131243l1a53c485s452780f9f6abb976@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Bob Dusek <redusek(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> And, we pretty much doubled our capacity... from approx 40 "requests"
> per second to approx 80.
Excellent!
> The problem with our "cheap" connection pool is that the persistent
> connections don't seem to be available immediately after they're
> released by the previous process. pg_close doesn't seem to help the
> situation. We understand that pg_close doesn't really close a
> persistent connection, but we were hoping that it would cleanly
> release it for another client to use. Curious.
Yeah, the persistent connects in php are kinda as dangerous as they
are useful.. Have you tried using regular connects just to compare
performance? On Linux they're not too bad, but on Windows (the pg
server that is) it's pretty horrible performance-wise.
> We've also tried third-party connection pools and they don't seem to
> be real fast.
What have you tried? Would pgbouncer work for you?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jorge Montero | 2010-01-13 21:58:45 | Hashaggregate estimates |
| Previous Message | Bob Dusek | 2010-01-13 20:10:04 | Re: performance config help |