Re: 100 simultaneous connections, critical limit?

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 100 simultaneous connections, critical limit?
Date: 2004-01-14 13:27:03
Message-ID: m3fzeilkyg.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Clinging to sanity, jonr(at)physicallink(dot)com (Jón Ragnarsson) mumbled into her beard:
> I am writing a website that will probably have some traffic.
> Right now I wrap every .php page in pg_connect() and pg_close().
> Then I read somewhere that Postgres only supports 100 simultaneous
> connections (default). Is that a limitation? Should I use some other
> method when writing code for high-traffic website?

I thought the out-of-the-box default was 32.

If you honestly need a LOT of connections, you can configure the
database to support more. I "upped the limit" on one system to have
512 the other week; certainly supportable, if you have the RAM for it.

It is, however, quite likely that the connect()/close() cuts down on
the efficiency of your application. If PHP supports some form of
"connection pooling," you should consider using that, as it will cut
down _dramatically_ on the amount of work done establishing/closing
connections, and should let your apps use somewhat fewer connections
more effectively.
--
(format nil "~S(at)~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linux.html
"It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have
been searching for evidence which could support this."
-- Bertrand Russell

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message CoL 2004-01-14 13:35:25 subquery and table join, index not use for table
Previous Message Shridhar Daithankar 2004-01-14 13:01:00 Re: 100 simultaneous connections, critical limit?