On 04/26/2014 11:06 AM, David Fetter wrote: > I know we allow for gigantic numbers of backend connections, but I've > never found a win for >2x the number of cores in the box, which at > least in my experience so far tops out in the 8-bit (in extreme cases > unsigned 8-bit) range.
For my part, I've found that anything over a few hundred backends on a commodity server leads to serious performance degradation. Even 2000 is enough to make most servers fall over. And with proper connection pooling, I can pump 30,000 queries per second through about 45 connections, so the clear path to supporting large numbers of connections is some form of built-in pooling. However, I agree with Tom that Andres should "show his hand" before we decrease MAX_BACKENDS by 256X. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
