Craig Ringer <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 05/26/2011 09:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Craig Ringer<craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. OK, maybe word it as "If you're considering raising max_connections much above 100, ..." ? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
