|
If anything was built in the database to handle such connections, I'd recommend a big, bold warning, recommending the use of client-side pooling if available. For something like, say, a web-server, pooling connections to the database provides a massive performance advantage regardless of how good the database is at handling way more active queries than the hardware can handle: The assignment of a connection to a thread tends to be at least an order of magnitude cheaper than establishing a new connection for each new thread, and destroying it when it dies. This is especially true if the client architecture relies in relatively short lived threads.
While there are a few cases where pooling is counter productive, this only happens in relatively few scenarios. This is why every java application server out there wil strongly recommend using its own facilities to connect to a database: The performance is almost always better, and it provides less headaches to the DBAs.
Now, if remote clients are accessing your database directly, setting up a pool inbetween might not be as straightforward or give you the same gains across the board, and that might be the only case where letting the db do its own pooling makes sense.
>>> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 7/9/2010 12:52 PM >>> Matthew Wakeling <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Kevin Grittner wrote: >>> Interesting idea. As far as I can see, you are suggesting >>> solving the too many connections problem by allowing lots of >>> connections, but only allowing a certain number to do anything >>> at a time? >> >> Right. > > I think in some situations, this arrangement would be an > advantage. However, I do not think it will suit the majority of > situations, and could reduce the performance when the user doesn't > need the functionality, either because they have a pool already, > or they don't have many connections. Oh, totally agreed, except that I think we can have essentially nil impact if they don't exceed a configured limit. In my experience, pooling is more effective the closer you put it to the client. I suppose the strongest argument that could be made against building in some sort of pooling is that it doesn't encourage people to look for client-side solutions. However, we seem to get a lot of posts from people who don't do this, are not able to easily manage it, and who would benefit from even a simple solution like this. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance |
