On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Niels Kristian Schjødt <nielskristian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If those 300 client connections are all long-lived, then yes you need that many in the pool. If they are short-lived connections, then you can have a lot less as any ones over the default_pool_size will simply block until an existing connection is closed and can be re-assigned--which won't take long if they are short-lived connections.
It would probably be even worse than having 300 clients connected directly. There would be no point in using a pooler under those conditions.
Cheers,
Jeff
Okay, thanks - but hey - if I put it at session pooling, then it says in the documentation: "default_pool_size: In session pooling it needs to be the number of max clients you want to handle at any moment". So as I understand it, is it true that I then have to set default_pool_size to 300 if I have up to 300 client connections?
If those 300 client connections are all long-lived, then yes you need that many in the pool. If they are short-lived connections, then you can have a lot less as any ones over the default_pool_size will simply block until an existing connection is closed and can be re-assigned--which won't take long if they are short-lived connections.
And then what would the pooler then help on my performance - would that just be exactly like having the 300 clients connect directly to the database???
It would probably be even worse than having 300 clients connected directly. There would be no point in using a pooler under those conditions.
Cheers,
Jeff
