Igor Neyman <ineyman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Our Java application uses c3p0 connection pooler and we don't >> think that it's the issue. > > "Client-side" connection pooling is different from server-side > (such as PgBouncer), and I believe is not as effective as > PgBouncer. In my experience a good client-side pooler can be more effective -- if all significant traffic is going through a single pooler and the pool size is set appropriately. For example, we improved performance on a 16 code 256 GB server by reducing the pool size of the web application (handling hundreds of requests per second from 3000 concurrent users) from a maximum of 60 database connections to 35. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Number_Of_Database_Connections > As you stated in original message you have multiple idle > connections, that's waste of resources. ... and a risk that if they all become active at one time, you can have a seemingly-random server overload. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
