| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Niels Kristian Schjødt <nielskristian(at)autouncle(dot)com>, Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New server setup |
| Date: | 2013-03-05 16:34:04 |
| Message-ID: | 1362501244.18199.YahooMailNeo@web162905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Niels Kristian Schjødt <nielskristian(at)autouncle(dot)com> wrote:
> So my question is, should I also get something like pgpool2 setup
> at the same time? Is it, from your experience, likely to increase
> my throughput a lot more, if I had a connection pool of eg. 20
> connections, instead of 300 concurrent ones directly?
In my experience, it can make a big difference. If you are just
using the pooler for this reason, and don't need any of the other
features of pgpool, I suggest pgbouncer. It is a simpler, more
lightweight tool.
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2013-03-05 17:10:21 | Re: New server setup |
| Previous Message | Julien Cigar | 2013-03-05 14:26:44 | Re: Optimize SELECT * from table WHERE foreign_key_id IN (key1,key2,key3,key4...) |