On 05/26/2011 09:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Craig Ringer<cr...@postnewspapers.com.au> writes:
max_connections = 100 # (change requires restart)
# WARNING: If you're about to increase max_connections above 100, you
# should probably be using a connection pool instead. See:
# http://wiki.postgresql.org/max_connections
This gives the impression that performance is great at 100 and falls off
a cliff at 101, which is both incorrect and likely to lower peoples'
opinion of the software.
Fair call; the use of a specific value is misleading.
I'd suggest wording more like "if you're
considering raising max_connections into the thousands, you should
probably use a connection pool instead".
Best performance is often obtained with the number of _active_
connections in the 10s to 30s on commonplace hardware. I'd want to use
"hundreds" - because mailing list posts etc suggest that people start
running into problems under load at the 400-500 mark, and more
importantly because it's well worth moving to pooling _way_ before that
point.
And I agree with Merlin that a
wiki pointer is inappropriate.
That does make sense.
--
Craig Ringer
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
