On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 08:06 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > Out of interest - why 1000 connections? > > Do you really expect to have 1000 jobs concurrently active and doing > work? If you don't, then you'll be wasting resources and slowing > things > down for no reason. There is a connection overhead in PostgreSQL - > IIRC > mostly related to database-wide locking and synchronization, but also > some memory for each backend - that means you probably shouldn't run > vastly more backends than you intend to have actively working. > > If you described your problem, perhaps someone could give you a useful > answer. Your mention of pgpool suggests that you're probably using a > web > app and running into connection count limits, but I shouldn't have to > guess that. > > -- > Craig Ringer
This is actually a fantastic point. Have you considered using more than one box to field the connections and using some sort of replication or worker process to move them to a master database of some sort? I don't know about the feasibility of it, but it might work out depending on what kind of application you're trying to write. Disclaimer: I work in a data warehousing and we only have 45 concurrent connections right now. OLTP and/or large connection counts isn't really what I spend my days thinking about. ;-) -Mark -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
