| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2014-02-17 18:39:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20140217183947.GD7161@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-02-17 13:33:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> And I still disagree with this- even in those cases. Those same untuned
> >> servers are running dirt-simple queries 90% of the time and they won't
> >> use any more memory from this, while the 10% of the queries which are
> >> more complicated will greatly improve.
> >
> > Uh. Paging.
>
> What about it?
It's often the source of a good portion of the queries and load in web
applications. Multiple joins and more than one row... I have several
time seen stats changes or bad to-be-sorted columns cause large amounts
of memory to be used.
Anyway, I've stated my opinion that I do not think it's a good idea to
raise that particular default (while agreeing with all the others) and I
know I am in the minority, so I don't think we need to argue this out...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Seymour | 2014-02-17 18:42:17 | 8.2 -> 8.4 Upgrade: No More "ldaps://"? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-02-17 18:33:17 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |