Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf

Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>

To: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>,"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, "Joshua Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>, "Hans-Juergen Schoenig" <postgres@cybertec.at>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net>, <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2008-08-19T17:17:46Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: 

> Attached is the postgresql.conf.simple I used in my presentaiton.  It

> has an egregious math error in it (see if you can find it) but should

> give you the general idea.

Well, this sure looks scary:

# maintenance_work_mem = 256MB  #webserver with 2GB RAM

But I'm amazed by this, too:

# max_connections = 700  # web application database

How many CPUs and spindles are you assuming there?

My testing and experience suggest applications should use no more than
4 per CPU plus 2 per spindle, absolute maximum.  Don't you find that a
connection pool with queuing capability is required for best
performance with a large number of users?

-Kevin