Re: Fwd: sensible configuration of max_connections

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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