On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> Andrew did the research to support a higher value, but even 10 should >> be an improvement over what we have now. > > Yes, I saw that, but I didn't see him recommend an actual number. Can > someone recommend a number now? Tom initially recommended 10, but > Andrew's tests suggest something > 100. Tom didn't do any tests so I > tend to favor Andrew's suggestion, if he has one.
In the OP, he suggested "on the order of 100". Maybe we could just go with 100. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
