Re: Connection Pooling, a year later

On Tue, 2001-12-18 at 13:46, Michael Owens wrote:
> 
> By having the postmaster map multiple clients to a fixed number of backends, 
> you achieve the happy medium: You never exceed the ideal number of active 
> backends, and at the same time you are not limited to only accepting a fixed 
> number of connections. Accepting connections can now be based on load 
> (however you wish to define it), not number.  You now make decisions based on 
> utlization.
> 
> If it were shown that even half of a backend's life consisted of idle time, 
> leasing out that idle time to another active connection would potentially 
> double the average number of simultaneous requests without (theoretically) 
> incurring any significant degradation in performance.
> 

Have you looked at the client-side connection pooling solutions out
there?

DBBalancer ( http://dbbalancer.sourceforge.net/ ) tries to sit very
transparently between your application and PostgreSQL, letting you
implement connection pooling with almost no application changes.

There was another one I came across too, but that one requires you to
make more wide-reaching changes to the application.

In my applications I have found DBBalancer to be roughly the same level
of performance as PHP persistent connections, but a lot fewer
connections are needed in the pool because they are only needed when
Apache is delivering dynamic content - not the associated static
stylesheets and images.

Regards,                Andrew.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew @ Catalyst .Net.NZ Ltd, PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington
WEB: http://catalyst.net.nz/        PHYS: Level 2, 150-154 Willis St
DDI: +64(4)916-7201    MOB: +64(21)635-694    OFFICE: +64(4)499-2267      Are you enrolled at
http://schoolreunions.co.nz/yet?