From: | Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: does max_connections affect the query planner |
Date: | 2019-09-17 14:15:04 |
Message-ID: | CACd=f9cWs6auC+aqkSAY6w8m4MXEoE=UPwCUF8f7Z0FY_Kg-Tg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Thanks Tom. Will check that.
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 14:13, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > We do know that max_connections is set quite high (600) when we don't
> > really expect more than 100. I wonder does the planner take
> > max_connections x work_mem into account when considering the memory it
> > has potentially available?
>
> No. There have been discussions to the effect that it ought to have
> a more holistic view about available memory; but nothing's been done
> about that, and certainly no existing release does so.
>
> Usually the proximate cause of bad plan choices is bad rowcount
> estimates --- you can spot that by comparing estimated and actual
> rowcounts in EXPLAIN ANALYZE results.
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2019-09-17 14:25:19 | Re: does max_connections affect the query planner |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-09-17 14:13:40 | Re: does max_connections affect the query planner |