On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Roberts, Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm awaiting confirmation from the lead architect, but I believe that > a single connection from pgAdmin will result in 1 connection to each > node in the cluster in GridSQL. However I believe there is also a > certain amount of pooling going on so I don't believe it's such a > problem. Besides.... that may be 16 connections in a 16 node system, > but each of those is a complete PostgreSQL/EnterpriseDB server capable > of handling as many connections as it could if it were a standalone > server (which could be hundreds or thousands), so it's no more an > issue than if you had a single server.
The word from the GridSQL guru is: I am not sure I understand why he has so many connections because each segment should be on a different host. Maybe they have something set up where there are multiple logical nodes (er, segments) running on a single postmaster instance. Maybe that further explodes if each segment creates a connection to every other one and persists it. In GridSQL, we have a pool of connections that are used, starting with 5 for each underlying node. These are shared amongst the users, unless somethings stateful happens in which case the underlying connection needs to become persistent for a user session. We also have an extra connection for the metadata database, and some vestiges of old code for a pool of "coordinator" connections, but they are not used for most queries. Anyway, the bottom line is, GridSQL will not consume as many connections as in the Greenplum case. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
