Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
Date: 2013-10-10 03:02:13
Message-ID: 20131010030213.GI7092@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 07:33:46PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I hear a lot of complaints about "the first 15 minutes experience" of
> Postgres. It's easy to scoff at this kind of thing, but I think we
> could do a lot better there, and at no real cost - the major blocker
> to doing something like that has been fixed (of course, I refer to the
> SysV shared memory limits). Is the person on a very small box where
> our current very conservative defaults are appropriate? Why not ask a
> few high-level questions like that to get inexperienced users started?
> The tool could even have a parameter that allows a packager to pass
> total system memory without bothering the user with that, and without
> bothering us with having to figure out a way to make that work
> correctly and portably.

I think the simplest solution would be to have a parameter to initdb
which specifies how much memory you want to use, and set a new variable
available_mem from that, and have things auto-tune based on that value
in the backend.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2013-10-10 03:13:14 Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2013-10-10 02:58:08 Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem