Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>wrote:

>
> On 10/17/2013 08:55 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>>
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> I still think my previous proposal of increasing the defaults for
>>> work_mem and maintenance_work_mem by 4X would serve many more
>>> people well than it would serve poorly. I haven't heard anyone
>>> disagree with that notion. Does anyone disagree? Should we do
>>> it?
>>>
>>
>> I think that it makes sense to do that. Those are still reasonable
>> defaults for a machine with 2GB of RAM, maybe even with less.
>> We're talking about putting this only in a release that will come
>> out in 2014. How many machines used for a database server that new
>> will have less than that?
>>
>
> A lot. A whole lot, more than what most people have in production with
> more than that. You are forgetting a very large segment of the population
> who run... VMs.
>
> Why don't we just have 3 default config files:
>
> 2GB memory
> 4GB memory
> 8GB memory
>

But what would go in each of those files? Once we agree on what would be
in them, why not just have a continuous knob that does that same thing?

Would your suggestion for the 2GB file have work_mem be at least 4 MB?

Cheers,

Jeff