[flagged]
I am also curious if anyone here has any anecdotal experience with transitioning away from an independent pooler after the v14+ improvements to connection management.
Does anyone run Postgres without PgBouncer?
81–90 of 121 posts
Re: Does anyone run Postgres without PgBouncer?
#82This question will get more interesting responses if it was qualified as: "Does anyone run Postgres without PgBouncer for non-trivial workloads?" Because, as we can see from the comments so far, lots of people are going to say you don't need it for your blog that gets 10 hits a month. I've personally never heard of anyone not using PGbouncer, or some connection pooling proxy, for reasonably concurrent workloads. PG's…
>I've personally never heard of anyone not using PGbouncer, or some connection pooling proxy,
There is plenty of space for large systems which need a database but don't have a large number of clients.
It's a matter of the scale of your data vs. the scale of your readers and writers.
Re: Does anyone run Postgres without PgBouncer?
#83This question will get more interesting responses if it was qualified as: "Does anyone run Postgres without PgBouncer for non-trivial workloads?" Because, as we can see from the comments so far, lots of people are going to say you don't need it for your blog that gets 10 hits a month. I've personally never heard of anyone not using PGbouncer, or some connection pooling proxy, for reasonably concurrent workloads. PG's…
Here, a single database, 300 transactions/s, between 10 - 20 TB dataset size. HA managed by VIP (keepalived).
Re: Does anyone run Postgres without PgBouncer?
#84This question will get more interesting responses if it was qualified as: "Does anyone run Postgres without PgBouncer for non-trivial workloads?" Because, as we can see from the comments so far, lots of people are going to say you don't need it for your blog that gets 10 hits a month. I've personally never heard of anyone not using PGbouncer, or some connection pooling proxy, for reasonably concurrent workloads. PG's…
Yes. The internal services should be doing stuff in bulk and not require too much parallelism. That leaves you with the number of concurrent users, which in b2b apps can be quite low.
Re: Does anyone run Postgres without PgBouncer?
#85Article title is pure click-bait. PgBouncer adds complexity. If you need it, you need it. If you don't need it, then you added complexity for nothing. > since neither IBM nor Oracle is a service that any self-respecting person not part of an enterprise sales cycle would actually use Author needs a serious ego check. There are legitimate engineering reasons to pick IBM Cloud (like if you need to support Z mainframes,…
It's an ironic claim because the Oracle cloud has great support for the Oracle Database, which doesn't require "bouncers" or equivalent. Its support for server-side connection pooling, client side load balancing (SCAN) and horizontal scaling means it offers exactly what the author wants - a single URL that just magically works and scales to any amount of work or connections cheaply. https://docs.oracle.com/en/databas…
Oracle DB may be excellent, but there is no chance I'd ever ever ever do business with Oracle due to their aggressive business practices.
Re: Does anyone run Postgres without PgBouncer?
#86Python: absolutely necessary due to the amount of processes and various deployments to run an application once it grows. Java: never felt the need even on quite big apps. As it's much easier to share a connection pool locally, it's not as many single connections across the whole app.
It's more so horizontal vs vertical scaling rather than languages.
You aren't running large scale xact/s on a single node.
Re: Does anyone run Postgres without PgBouncer?
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your high level buckets are languages but the constraints you list are usage patterns. You can build applications in any language that have many short-lived transactions in single connections or a few huge, blocking one, or anything in between. The former case is a good one for PGBouncer (it can interleave transactions) and the latter isn’t (it can’t do much about your three minute long BEGIN…COMMIT). Neither has to…
They addressed this though? I suspect you are unfamiliar with the GIL in python. The reason for a language distinction is because, as OP says: "As it's much easier to share a connection pool locally". This may change vaguely soon, but right now you typically scale python apps by starting multiple python processes, while for Java you can just add threads. Python processes can't share a thread pool among all of them, w…
You've misunderstood the GIL and Python threads.
For I/O, you can add threads and share the same connection object. Like any other languages, you are responsible for making it thread-safe.
There's also async. Many Python web apps spawn a thread per worker in your web server, not processes. Look into ASGI vs WSGI.
Re: Does anyone run Postgres without PgBouncer?
#88[flagged]
This account is an AI bot - check its history. It generates a summary of each article to generate a plausible comment to build up an account reputation. Flagged.
Re: Does anyone run Postgres without PgBouncer?
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Languages have affordances. At the extreme ends are PHP, and Java or Go. PHP runs a separate logical process on every request which can't share resources with any other request. Almost everyone using Go is writing a long-running server process because that's how the libraries are designed. Almost everyone using Java is writing a long-running process or a module for one, because Java startup times are obscene. Java al…
Multi-threaded processes are used because that's the most efficient model, hardware wise. Tasks can maximally share resources. It's not to do with library design or startup time.
The hardware doesn't know anything about processes. The most efficient model, hardware-wise, is to disable virtual memory and never do a context switch, but we don't see anyone programming like that, except for the crazy SDN folks who are doing software packet forwarding at hundred-gigabit rates.
Re: Does anyone run Postgres without PgBouncer?
#90This question will get more interesting responses if it was qualified as: "Does anyone run Postgres without PgBouncer for non-trivial workloads?" Because, as we can see from the comments so far, lots of people are going to say you don't need it for your blog that gets 10 hits a month. I've personally never heard of anyone not using PGbouncer, or some connection pooling proxy, for reasonably concurrent workloads. PG's…
Not all non-trivial workloads are web-scale. There are plenty of on-premise applications out there that have at most hundreds or thousands of concurrent users, and the connections come from a bunch of fat spring boot servers that handle most of the pooling by themselves.
Atlassian apps.