Hi Tom,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> It will cost you, in ProcArray scans for example. But lots-of-idle-
> connections is exactly what a pooler is supposed to prevent. If you have
> a server that can handle say 10 active queries, you should have a pool
> size of 10, not 100. (If you have a server that can actually handle
> 100 active queries, I'd like to have your IT budget.)
>
> The proposed design sounds fairly reasonable to me, as long as users are
> clear on how to set the pool size --- and in particular that bigger is
> not better. Clueless users could definitely shoot themselves in the
> foot, though.
Yeah, well.
My understanding of what happened on the field is that people usually
set the pool size limit quite high because they don't want to
experience connection starvation even if there is a temporary slowdown
of their application/database.
Is the overhead of having 100 connections open noticeable or is it
better to not have them but not so bad to have them?
Thanks.
--
Guillaume