David Kerr <dmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Actually, this is real.. that's 2000 connections - connection > pooled out to 20k or so. (although i'm pushing for closer to 1000 > connections). > > I know that's not the ideal way to go, but it's what i've got to > work with. > > It IS a huge box though... FWIW, my benchmarks (and I've had a couple people tell me this is consistent with what they've seen) show best throughput and best response time when the connection pool is sized such that the number of active PostgreSQL connections is limited to about twice the number of CPU cores plus the number of effective spindles. Either you've got one heck of a machine, or your "sweet spot" for the connection pool will be well under 1000 connections. It is important that your connection pool queues requests when things are maxed out, and quickly submit a new request when completion brings the number of busy connections below the maximum. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
