From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
Date: | 2014-05-06 14:17:06 |
Message-ID: | 20140506141706.GB5658@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-05-06 15:09:15 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 8 October 2013 17:13, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > Patch applied with a default of 4x shared buffers. I have added a 9.4
> > TODO that we might want to revisit this.
>
> I certainly want to revisit this patch and this setting.
>
> How can we possibly justify a default setting that could be more than
> physical RAM?
Because it doesn't hurt overly much if it's set too large?
> The maximum known safe value is the setting of shared_buffers itself,
> without external knowledge. But how can we possibly set it even that
> high?
>
> Does anyone have any evidence at all on how to set this? How can we
> possibly autotune it?
It's just a different default setting? I think the new value will cause
less problems than the old one which frequently leads to index scans not
being used although beneficial.
> I prefer the idea of removing "effective_cache_size" completely, since
> it has so little effect on workloads and is very frequently
> misunderstood by users. It's just dangerous, without being useful.
-many.
> Lets fix e_c_s at 25% of shared_buffers and remove the parameter
> completely, just as we do with so many other performance parameters.
That'd cause *massive* regression for many installations. Without
significantly overhauling costsize.c that's really not feasible. There's
lots of installations that use relatively small s_b settings for good
reasons. If we fix e_c_s to 25% of s_b many queries on those won't use
indexes anymore.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-06 14:17:39 | Re: New pg_lsn type doesn't have hash/btree opclasses |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-05-06 14:09:15 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |