In my recent experience PgPool2 performs pretty badly as a pooler. I'd avoid it if possible, unless you depend on other features. It simply doesn't scale.
On 5 March 2013 21:59, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Niels Kristian Schjødt < > nielskrist...@autouncle.com> wrote: > >> Okay, thanks - but hey - if I put it at session pooling, then it says in >> the documentation: "default_pool_size: In session pooling it needs to be >> the number of max clients you want to handle at any moment". So as I >> understand it, is it true that I then have to set default_pool_size to 300 >> if I have up to 300 client connections? >> > > If those 300 client connections are all long-lived, then yes you need that > many in the pool. If they are short-lived connections, then you can have a > lot less as any ones over the default_pool_size will simply block until an > existing connection is closed and can be re-assigned--which won't take long > if they are short-lived connections. > > > And then what would the pooler then help on my performance - would that >> just be exactly like having the 300 clients connect directly to the >> database??? >> > > It would probably be even worse than having 300 clients connected > directly. There would be no point in using a pooler under those conditions. > > > Cheers, > > Jeff > -- GJ
