Re: max_connections/shared_buffers (was Re: Beta4 Tag'd

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Adam Witney <awitney(at)sghms(dot)ac(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_connections/shared_buffers (was Re: Beta4 Tag'd
Date: 2003-10-06 17:21:43
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0310061919180.4051-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> Perhaps we should avoid all attempts at cuteness and just run the
> initial probes for workable shared_buffers with max_connections=20,
> as well as making that be the minimum max_connections value probed for.
>
> Anyone see a better way?

Maybe just run one loop and try pairs of (shared_buffers, max_connections):

(1000, 100) (800, 50) (600, 40) (400, 30) (200, 20) (50, 10)

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-10-06 17:26:35 Re: max_connections/shared_buffers (was Re: Beta4 Tag'd and Bundled ...)
Previous Message Sean Chittenden 2003-10-06 17:01:36 Re: count(*) slow on large tables