On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:02 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote:

> Well, 16MB is 2K pages, which is what you'd get if 100 connections were
> all blocked and we're doing 20 pages per waiter. That seems like a really
> extreme scenario, so maybe 4MB is a good compromise. That's unlikely to be
> hit in most cases, unlikely to put a ton of stress on IO, even with
> magnetic media (assuming the whole 4MB is queued to write in one shot...).
> 4MB would still reduce the number of locks by 500x.

In my performance results given up thread, we are getting max performance
at 32 clients, means at a time we are extending 32*20 ~= max (600) pages at
a time. So now with 4MB limit (max 512 pages) Results will looks similar.
So we need to take a decision whether 4MB is good limit, should I change it

Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Reply via email to