On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:50, Niklas Langvig <niklas.langvig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi > > We currently use postgres 8.3 on windows 2008 32bit > > With max_connections set to 1000 Wow. That's really not good for performance on Windows.. > Since we have more than 125 connections, we run postgres as a stand alone > process instead of as a service. > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Running_&_Installing_PostgreSQL_On_Native_Windows#I_cannot_run_with_more_than_about_125_connections_at_once.2C_despite_having_capable_hardware > > > > Now when we are upgrading to Windows 2008 64bit running PostgreSQL 9 64 bit. > > Can we run it as a service even though we have max_connections set to 1000 > or do we have to run it as a stand alone process? AFAIK, it should work, but I don't think anybody has done any kind of benchmark to figure out where the limit is at now. > Say that I would set max_connection to 5000 and then have 5000 postgres > processes running on the server, is that wise? No. And the same definitely goes for 1000. It works, but it's not wise. > Must each connection have to start a new process? Yes. > I guess we should look at pgBouncer (actually we have looked at it but it’s > not in use right now) If you can use that, or application level connection pooling, you will likely get much better performance. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
