Catalin Iacob wrote: > Hardware: > Virtual machine running on top of VMWare > 4 cores, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5645 @ 2.40GHz > 4GB of RAM You should carefully test transaction-based pools limited to around 8 DB connections. Experiment with different size limits. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Number_Of_Database_Connections > Disk that is virtual enough that I have no idea what it is, I know > that there's some big storage shared between multiple virtual > machines. Filesystem is ext4 with default mount options. Can you change to noatime? > pgbouncer 1.4.2 installed from Ubuntu's packages on the same > machine as Postgres. Django connects via TCP/IP to pgbouncer (it > does one connection and one transaction per request) and pgbouncer > keeps connections open to Postgres via Unix socket. The Python > client is self compiled psycopg2-2.4.5. Is there a good transaction-based connection pooler in Python? You're better off with a good pool built in to the client application than with a good pool running as a separate process between the client and the database, IMO. > random_page_cost | 2 For fully cached databases I recommend random_page_cost = 1, and I always recommend cpu_tuple_cost = 0.03. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
