On 6/3/09 10:45 AM, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dimitri <dimitrik.fr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Few weeks ago tested a customer application on 16 cores with Oracle: >> - 20,000 sessions in total >> - 70,000 queries/sec >> >> without any problem on a mid-range Sun box + Solaris 10.. > > I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Could you elaborate? > > (If it's that Oracle doesn't need an external connection pool, then > are you advocating that PostgreSQL include that in the base product?) > Here is how I see it -- not speaking for Dimitri. Although Oracle's connections are heavyweight and expensive to create, having many of them around and idle does not affect scalability much if at all. Postgres could fix its connection scalability issues -- that is entirely independent of connection pooling. In most other databases (all others that I have used), pooling merely prevents the expense of connection creation/destruction and helps save some RAM and not much else. The fact that it affects scalability and performance beyond that so dramatically in Postgres is a problem with Postgres. > -Kevin > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
