Re: Scaling / Number of simultanous connections
Dwayne A <[email protected]> Fri, 8 Feb 2019 13:24:11 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.novice |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAGMg5zTcQs-ym9eYo0DVURgbwtH_RaPpVA5sDYApxeVGAcOa6Q@mail.gmail.com> |
You could also look at pgbouncer for connection pooling. https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PgBouncer Cheers, Dwayne On Thu., Feb. 7, 2019, 9:57 a.m. Andreas Kretschmer, < [email protected]> wrote: > > > Am 07.02.19 um 18:43 schrieb Nico Callewaert: > > Hi, > > > > I'm about to start porting a Firebird DB to Postgres. Next thing will > > be upgrading all customers. Most of our customers have around 30 users > > or less. We have a few 'bigger' customers that maybe have 50 users or > > a bit more still. The application is a Delphi application that is in > > fact a 'fat' client that uses a permanent connection to the DB. I've > > read that Postgres uses 1 process per user. So that means 30-50 > > processes at the same time. > > > > I have 2 questions about this > > - I guess this situation is not really a heavy workload? Or is it? > > not really, assuming not all connections are active the same time. > > > - And is it correct that a single process cannot access multiple CPU > > cores, so things are not multi threaded? I guess MySQL used that > > argument somewhere, but I'm not sure, forgive me if I'm mistaken. > > yes and no, since 9.6 we can use multiple cores for one query, using > multiple processes. > > > > > > The whole thing boils down to this question: Am I save with 30-50 > > simultanous users for speed and scaling? > > > > most likely yes, on modern hardware. > > > Regards, Andreas > > -- > 2ndQuadrant - The PostgreSQL Support Company. > www.2ndQuadrant.com > > >