On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:02 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote:
> Well, 16MB is 2K pages, which is what you'd get if 100 connections were > all blocked and we're doing 20 pages per waiter. That seems like a really > extreme scenario, so maybe 4MB is a good compromise. That's unlikely to be > hit in most cases, unlikely to put a ton of stress on IO, even with > magnetic media (assuming the whole 4MB is queued to write in one shot...). > 4MB would still reduce the number of locks by 500x. In my performance results given up thread, we are getting max performance at 32 clients, means at a time we are extending 32*20 ~= max (600) pages at a time. So now with 4MB limit (max 512 pages) Results will looks similar. So we need to take a decision whether 4MB is good limit, should I change it ? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
