On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Fabrix <fabrixio1(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Which is better and more complete, which have more features?
> What you recommend? pgbouncer or pgpool?
In your case, where you're looking to just get the connection overhead
off of the machine, pgBouncer is probably going to be more efficient. It's
small and very lightweight, and you don't have to worry about a lot of extra
features. It is a '... to the wall' connection pool.
pgPool is definitely more feature-full, but honestly, you probably don't
need the ability (at least now) to balance selects / against replicated
servers, or have the pooler do a write to multiple servers for H/A. Both
these things would take more time to implement.
pgPool is real an all-around H/A / scalability architecture e decision
whereas pgBouncer is a nice, lightweight and quick way to:
*) Lower the number of connections to the dbserver
*) Avoid connect / disconnect overhead
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Anne Rosset||Date: 2009-05-29 21:31:57|
|Subject: Re: Unexpected query plan results|
|Previous:||From: Fabrix||Date: 2009-05-29 19:45:48|
|Subject: Re: Scalability in postgres|