On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 11:14 AM Justin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:56 PM Sam Gendler
> 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 may
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:56 PM Sam Gendler
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
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 5:36 AM Steve Atkins wrote:
> What's a good number of active connections to aim for? It probably depends
> on whether they tend to be CPU-bound or IO-bound, but I've seen the rule of
> thumb of "around twice the number of CPU cores" tossed around, and it's
> probably a dece
On 07/02/2020 13:18, Chris Withers wrote:
On 07/02/2020 12:49, Chris Ellis wrote:
What's "too much" for max_connections? What happens when you set it to
high? What factors affect that number?
When sizing max_connections you need to trade off how many
connections your application will us
On 07/02/2020 12:49, Chris Ellis wrote:
What's "too much" for max_connections? What happens when you set it to
high? What factors affect that number?
When sizing max_connections you need to trade off how many connections
your application will use at peak vs how much RAM and CPU you have.
Hi Chris
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020, 08:36 Chris Withers, wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> What's a sensible way to pick the number to use for max_connections?
>
Sensible in this context is some what variable. Each connection in
PostgreSQL will be allocated a backend process. These are not the lightest
weight of
