| From: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 19:19:56 |
| Message-ID: | 530260DC.1060907@archidevsys.co.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18/02/14 03:48, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> writes:
>> On 17/02/14 15:26, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I don't really know about cpu_tuple_cost. Kevin's often advocated
>>> raising it, but I haven't heard anyone else advocate for that. I
>>> think we need data points from more people to know whether or not
>>> that's a good idea in general.
>> Processors have been getting faster, relative to spinning rust, over the
>> years. So it puzzles me why anybody would want to raise the
>> cpu_tuple_cost!
> The case where this is sensible is where your database mostly fits in
> RAM, so that the cost of touching the underlying spinning rust isn't
> so relevant. The default cost settings are certainly not very good
> for such scenarios.
>
> regards, tom lane
Thanks.
That is obvious... once you pointed it out!
Cheers,
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Seymour | 2014-02-17 19:33:03 | Re: 8.2 -> 8.4 Upgrade: No More "ldaps://"? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-17 19:18:40 | Re: 8.2 -> 8.4 Upgrade: No More "ldaps://"? |