| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Decrease MAX_BACKENDS to 2^16 |
| Date: | 2014-04-26 20:16:38 |
| Message-ID: | 535C1426.9010509@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/26/2014 11:06 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> I know we allow for gigantic numbers of backend connections, but I've
> never found a win for >2x the number of cores in the box, which at
> least in my experience so far tops out in the 8-bit (in extreme cases
> unsigned 8-bit) range.
For my part, I've found that anything over a few hundred backends on a
commodity server leads to serious performance degradation. Even 2000 is
enough to make most servers fall over. And with proper connection
pooling, I can pump 30,000 queries per second through about 45
connections, so the clear path to supporting large numbers of
connections is some form of built-in pooling.
However, I agree with Tom that Andres should "show his hand" before we
decrease MAX_BACKENDS by 256X.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-04-26 20:22:55 | Re: Decrease MAX_BACKENDS to 2^16 |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-04-26 20:08:32 | Re: UUIDs in core WAS: 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table |