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

Re: Prepared Statements vs. pgbouncer

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: lindner(at)inuus(dot)com, Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Prepared Statements vs. pgbouncer
Date: 2007-10-01 18:18:54
Message-ID: 47013A0E.6080607@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
Heikki,

> You might also consider if using pgbouncer or similar really is
> necessary. Perhaps you could get away with a per-client connection pool,
> with "min pool size" small enough, maybe 0, that the number of
> simultaneous connections to the server would stay reasonable.
> 

It becomes necessary whenever you have a large number of appservers 
connecting to the same database server.  Setting min pool size downwards 
isn't really effective becuase then you're just adding connection time 
delays ... exactly what you're trying to prevent by using a connection pool.

I'm working on a scalable project myself which is why I'm concerned 
about this.  The reason why we're planning to rely on pgBouncer is that 
we'll have both java and non-java applications connecting to the same 
database, and we don't want to manage two different connection/failover 
pools.  So it's important to us that PG-JDBC function with independant 
connection pools.

So where is it going to be easier to fix this ... pgBouncer, or pg-JDBC?

--Josh Berkus

In response to

Responses

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Dave CramerDate: 2007-10-01 18:35:59
Subject: Re: Prepared Statements vs. pgbouncer
Previous:From: Till ToengesDate: 2007-10-01 16:52:50
Subject: Re: Prepared Statements vs. pgbouncer

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