Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Comparative performance

From: PFC <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com>
To: Joe <svn(at)freedomcircle(dot)net>,"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Cc: "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Comparative performance
Date: 2005-09-29 16:12:52
Message-ID: op.sxvgnqfrth1vuj@localhost (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance

> I just tried using pg_pconnect() and I didn't notice any significant  
> improvement.  What bothers me most is that with Postgres I tend to see  
> jerky behavior on almost every page:  the upper 1/2 or 2/3 of the page  
> is displayed first and you can see a blank bottom (or you can see a  
> half-filled completion bar).  With MySQL each page is generally  
> displayed in one swoop.

	Persistent connections are useful when your page is fast and the  
connection time is an important part of your page time. It is mandatory if  
you want to serve more than 20-50 hits/s without causing unnecessary load  
on the database. This is not your case, which is why you don't notice any  

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: PFCDate: 2005-09-29 16:17:05
Subject: Re: Comparative performance
Previous:From: PFCDate: 2005-09-29 16:10:29
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group