| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Joshua Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Hans-Juergen Schoenig" <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |
| Date: | 2008-08-19 17:17:46 |
| Message-ID: | 48AAB9EA.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-19 17:22:34 | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-19 17:06:45 | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |