Message-ID: <508FDDF4.2000403@optionshouse.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:02:28 -0500
From: Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
Reply-To: <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
Organization: Peak6
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@mail.com>
CC: Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin@gmail.com>, <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: How to keep queries low latency as concurrency increases
References: <20121030115554.306900@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121030115554.306900@gmx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

On 10/30/2012 06:55 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:

> Is there a good transaction-based connection pooler in Python?
> You're better off with a good pool built in to the client application
> than with a good pool running as a separate process between the
> client and the database, IMO.

Could you explain this a little more? My experience is almost always the 
exact opposite, especially in large clusters that may have dozens of 
servers all hitting the same database. A centralized pool has much less 
duplication and can serve from a smaller pool than having 12 servers 
each have 25 connections reserved in their own private pool or something.

I mean... a pool is basically a proxy server. I don't have 12 individual 
proxy servers for 12 webservers.

-- 
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas@optionshouse.com

______________________________________________

See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email