Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2014-02-28 02:09:53
Message-ID: 530FEFF1.3090000@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 02/18/2014 12:19 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-02-16 21:26:47 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't think anyone objected to increasing the defaults for work_mem
>> and maintenance_work_mem by 4x, and a number of people were in favor,
>> so I think we should go ahead and do that. If you'd like to do the
>> honors, by all means!
>
> Actually, I object to increasing work_mem by default. In my experience
> most of the untuned servers are backing some kind of web application and
> often run with far too many connections. Increasing work_mem for those
> is dangerous.

Good point. Especially with pagination involved. Those OFFSET 40000
LIMIT 100 queries can be a killer.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-02-28 02:17:53 Re: jsonb and nested hstore
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2014-02-28 02:08:50 Re: jsonb and nested hstore