On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's a mostly religious argument. I.e. you're going on feeling here
> that pooling in jdbc alone is better than either jdbc/pgbouncer or
> plain pgbouncer alone. My experience is that jdbc pooling is not in
> the same category as pgbouncer for configuration and performance.
> Either way, get that connection count down to something reasonable.
>
> Basically pgbouncer is veyr lightweight and can take thousands of
> incoming connections and balance them into a few dozen connections to
> the database.
I've had a look at the pgbouncer docs, and it appears that there are 3
modes: session, transaction and statement.
Session pooling appears to be the most conservative, but unless I am
missing something, I don't see how it will reduce the number of actual
database connections when used in between a JDBC connection pool?
If using Transaction pooling, it appears that you need to disable
prepared statements in JDBC - any the FAQ stays you need to apply a
patch to the JDBC driver to get it (admittedly, that FAQ appears that
it might be out of date given the JDBC version it references).
-Dave
