Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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?


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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