| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: |
| Date: | 2003-02-12 23:52:25 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0302121912150.2811-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane writes:
> Well, as I commented later in that mail, I feel that 1000 buffers is
> a reasonable choice --- but I have to admit that I have no hard data
> to back up that feeling.
I know you like it in that range, and 4 or 8 MB of buffers by default
should not be a problem. But personally I think if the optimal buffer
size does not depend on both the physical RAM you want to dedicate to
PostgreSQL and the nature and size of the database, then we have achieved
a medium revolution in computer science. ;-)
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-13 01:43:23 | Re: Changing the default configuration |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-02-12 18:30:13 | Re: Changing the default configuration |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2003-02-12 23:57:42 | Re: log_duration |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-12 22:42:44 | Brain dump: btree collapsing |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-13 01:43:23 | Re: Changing the default configuration |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-02-12 18:30:13 | Re: Changing the default configuration |