Re: Connection pooling - Number of connections

From: Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Sethu Prasad <sethuprasad(dot)in(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Connection pooling - Number of connections
Date: 2014-03-21 18:38:56
Message-ID: CALt0+o9rdq2QodbX4Rr-CdQzJX7oSWC-YynCsxP-G1-T-TxLQg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Hi Sethu,

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Sethu Prasad <sethuprasad(dot)in(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> So here the connection creation action is the costliest among all the other
> management tasks. so keeping the connections ready is the best option.

That's why you often have a minIdle parameter which allows to create
idle connections in advance.

> poolSize parameter is very good in the sense when the application owner know
> what is the optimal number to put, after having application performance
> analysed with the history of previous settings and the improvements made on
> it. server sizing always shows up in this sort of analysis.

It supposes that you do this job. From my experience, most of the "not
so demanding" apps are put into production without this sort of
detailed analysis.

You do it for your critical high throughput applications, not for the others.

That said, interesting discussion. Not exactly what I expected.

--
Guillaume

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Johnston 2014-03-21 18:41:05 Re: Connection pooling - Number of connections
Previous Message Guillaume Smet 2014-03-21 18:36:10 Re: Connection pooling - Number of connections