Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf
Date
Msg-id 48AAB9EA.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf  ("Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>)
Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf  (Joshua Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: 
> Attached is the postgresql.conf.simple I used in my presentaiton.  It

> has an egregious math error in it (see if you can find it) but should

> give you the general idea.
Well, this sure looks scary:
# maintenance_work_mem = 256MB  #webserver with 2GB RAM
But I'm amazed by this, too:
# max_connections = 700  # web application database
How many CPUs and spindles are you assuming there?
My testing and experience suggest applications should use no more than
4 per CPU plus 2 per spindle, absolute maximum.  Don't you find that a
connection pool with queuing capability is required for best
performance with a large number of users?
-Kevin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf