| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2013-10-09 17:09:15 |
| Message-ID: | 52558DBB.10702@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/09/2013 10:07 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> We can have the discussion here or in another thread. I am thinking the
> right fix is to allocate larger shared_buffers, especially now that we
> don't require a larger System V shared memory segement. Basically, for
> 128MB of shared buffers, I figured the calculation was fine, and when we
> increase the default shared_buffers, we will then get a better default,
> which is why I am quoting the 2GB shared_buffers defaults in my emails.
Also, it's *worlds* easier to tell users:
"set shared_buffers to 1/4 of your RAM, butnot more than 8GB."
then to tell them:
"set shared_buffers to X, and work_mem to Y, and maintenance_work_mem to
Z ..."
That is, if there's one and only one setting users need to change, they
are more likely to do it.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2013-10-09 17:25:56 | Re: Patch: FORCE_NULL option for copy COPY in CSV mode |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-10-09 17:07:12 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |