| From: | "Clark, Joel" <jclark(at)lendingtree(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Joseph Shraibman'" <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "'sk(at)pobox(dot)com'" <sk(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | RE: Connection Pooling...(Repost)...please do help.. |
| Date: | 2000-12-19 13:44:18 |
| Message-ID: | 69F195289743D411B428009027E293C40267105F@CLTEXCH1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
Yes, but the load of 200 concurrent fork()ed backends might be worse. :)
jc
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Shraibman [mailto:jks(at)selectacast(dot)net]
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Connection Pooling...(Repost)...please do
help..
"Clark, Joel" wrote:
>
> I haven't found PG to have much connection overhead, why would
open/closing
> a connection-per-query require server side connection pooling?
Each connection causes the backend to fork. With a heavy load you'll
feel the overhead of creating and closing so many connections.
--
Joseph Shraibman
jks(at)selectacast(dot)net
Increase signal to noise ratio. http://www.targabot.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexaki Sofia | 2000-12-19 14:51:45 | Shared Memory: out of memory |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2000-12-19 13:21:03 | RE: version numbers of WinODBC |