From: | Justin <zzzzz(dot)graf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sam Gendler <sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com> |
Cc: | Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fwd: sensible configuration of max_connections |
Date: | 2020-02-07 19:14:37 |
Message-ID: | CALL-XeMc06NtJfSb557JS_UPRRo5zWqR-hRac1hRT4Q6HgxWSQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:56 PM Sam Gendler <sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com>
wrote:
> Benchmarks, at the time, showed that performance started to fall off due
> to contention if the number of processes got much larger. I imagine that
> the speed of storage today would maybe make 3 or 4x core count a pretty
> reasonable place to start. There will be a point of diminishing returns
> somewhere, but you can probably construct your own benchmarks to determine
> where that point is likely to be for your workload.
>
I wonder if anyone has run benchmark like that lately? Doing such a
benchmark maybe worth while given that so much is now running either in the
cloud or running in a VM or some other kind of Container. all this
abstraction from the hardware layer surely has had to have an impact on the
numbers and rules of thumb...
I still run on real hardware and spinning disk.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2020-02-07 20:38:49 | Re: periodic refresh of pre-production stages |
Previous Message | Sam Gendler | 2020-02-07 18:56:20 | Re: Fwd: sensible configuration of max_connections |