On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:03:01AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
OK, I will go with 100 unless I hear otherwise. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
