On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 01:37:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Bruno Almeida do Lago" <teolupus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Is there a real limit for max_connections? Here we've an Oracle server with
> > up to 1200 simultaneous conections over it!
> [ shrug... ] If your machine has the beef to run 1200 simultaneous
> queries, you can set max_connections to 1200.
> The point of what you were quoting is that if you want to service
> 1200 concurrent users but you only expect maybe 100 simultaneously
> active queries from them (and you have a database box that can only
> service that many) then you want to put a connection pooler in
> front of 100 backends, not try to start a backend for every user.
> Oracle may handle this sort of thing differently, I dunno.
> regards, tom lane
Oracle has some form of built-in connection pooling. I don't remember
the exact details of it off the top of my head, but I think it was a
'wedge' that clients would connect to as if it was the database, and the
wedge would then find an available database process to use.
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Markus Schaber||Date: 2005-02-25 16:28:58|
|Subject: Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-02-25 16:05:10|
|Subject: Re: Possible interesting extra information for explain analyze? |