Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: more than 1000 connections

From: Mark Roberts <mailing_lists(at)pandapocket(dot)com>
To: pgsql-sql <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: more than 1000 connections
Date: 2008-08-06 15:54:40
Message-ID: 1218038080.28304.20.camel@localhost (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 08:06 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Out of interest - why 1000 connections?
> 
> Do you really expect to have 1000 jobs concurrently active and doing
> work? If you don't, then you'll be wasting resources and slowing
> things
> down for no reason. There is a connection overhead in PostgreSQL -
> IIRC
> mostly related to database-wide locking and synchronization, but also
> some memory for each backend - that means you probably shouldn't run
> vastly more backends than you intend to have actively working.
> 
> If you described your problem, perhaps someone could give you a useful
> answer. Your mention of pgpool suggests that you're probably using a
> web
> app and running into connection count limits, but I shouldn't have to
> guess that.
> 
> --
> Craig Ringer

This is actually a fantastic point.  Have you considered using more than
one box to field the connections and using some sort of replication or
worker process to move them to a master database of some sort?  I don't
know about the feasibility of it, but it might work out depending on
what kind of application you're trying to write.

Disclaimer: I work in a data warehousing and we only have 45 concurrent
connections right now.  OLTP and/or large connection counts isn't really
what I spend my days thinking about. ;-)

-Mark


In response to

Responses

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Jorge MedinaDate: 2008-08-06 16:42:54
Subject: Re: more than 1000 connections
Previous:From: Terry Lee TuckerDate: 2008-08-06 12:44:11
Subject: Re: Case Insensitive searches

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group