Are tables vacuumed often?
Bryan Buecking escribió:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:55:19AM -0500, Erik Jones wrote:
>
>> On Apr 22, 2008, at 10:31 AM, Bryan Buecking wrote:
>>
>>
>>> max_connections = 2400
>>>
>> That is WAY too high. Get a real pooler, such as pgpool, and drop
>> that down to 1000 and test from there.
>>
>
> I agree, but the number of idle connections dont' seem to affect
> performace only memory usage. I'm trying to lessen the load of
> connection setup. But sounds like this tax is minimal?
>
> When these issues started happening, max_connections was set to 1000 and
> I was not using persistent connections.
>
>
>> I see you mentioned 500 concurrent connections. Are each of those
>> connections actually doing something?
>>
>
> Yes out of the 2400 odd connections, 500 are either in SELECT or RESET.
>
>
>> My guess that once you cut down on the number actual connections
>> you'll find that each connection can get it's work done faster
>> and you'll see that number drop significantly.
>>
>
> I agree, but not in this case. I will look at using pooling.
>
