| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, 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 22:07:57 |
| Message-ID: | 53695D3D.3030806@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/06/2014 05:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I read the code, think what to say and then say what I think, not
>> rely on dogma.
>>
>> I tried to help years ago by changing the docs on e_c_s, but that's
>> been mostly ignored down the years, as it is again here.
> Well, for what it's worth, I've encountered systems where setting
> effective_cache_size too low resulted in bad query plans, but I've
> never encountered the reverse situation.
I have encountered both. Recently I discovered that a client's
performance problems were solved pretty instantly by reducing a
ridiculously high setting down to something more reasonable (in this
case about 50% of physical RAM is what we set it to).
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-06 22:09:16 | Re: pg_shmem_allocations view |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-05-06 21:54:19 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |