| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Shiva Sarna <shivasarna(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)in>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: increasing database connections | 
| Date: | 2007-03-01 08:58:24 | 
| Message-ID: | 20070301085824.GB27639@svr2.hagander.net | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance | 
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 12:49:14AM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Shiva Sarna <shivasarna(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)in> wrote:
> >I am sorry if it is a repeat question but I want to know if database
> >performance will decrease if I increase the max-connections to 2000. At
> >present it is 100.
> 
> Most certainly.  Adding connections over 200 will degrade performance
> dramatically.  You should look into pgpool or connection pooling from
> the application.
Are you sure? I've heard of at least one installation which runs with
5000+ connections, and it works fine. (you know who you are - I don't
know if it's public info, so I can't put out the details - but feel free
to fill in :P)
That said, there's certainly some overhead, and using pgpool if possible
is good advice (depending on workload). I'm just wondering about
the "dramatically" part.
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ben Trewern | 2007-03-01 11:00:38 | Re: performances with Pentium D | 
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2007-03-01 07:07:06 | Re: increasing database connections |