On 11/28/10, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In a close race, I don't think we should get bogged down in > micro-optimization here, both because micro-optimizations may not gain > much and because what works well on one platform may not do much at > all on another. The more general issue here is what to do about our > high backend startup costs. Beyond trying to recycle backends for new > connections, as I've previous proposed and with all the problems it > entails,
Is there a particular discussion of that matter you could point me to? > the only thing that looks promising here is to try to somehow > cut down on the cost of populating the catcache and relcache, not that > I have a very clear idea how to do that. This has to be a soluble > problem because other people have solved it. Oracle's backend start up time seems to be way higher than PG's. Their main solution is something that is fundamentally a built in connection pooler with some bells and whistles built in. I'm not sure "other people" you had in mind--Oracle is generally the one that pops to my mind. > To some degree we're a > victim of our own flexible and extensible architecture here, but I > find it pretty unsatisfying to just say, OK, well, we're slow. What about "well OK, we have PGbouncer"? Are there fixable short-comings that it has which could make the issue less of an issue? Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
