| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
| Date: | 2013-01-10 17:26:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20130110172607.255780@gmx.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> The, shared_buffers, wal_buffers, and effective_cache_size (and possible
> other future settings) can be set to -1. If they are set to -1, then we
> use the figure:
>
> shared_buffers = available_ram * 0.25
> (with a ceiling of 8GB)
> wal_buffers = available_ram * 0.05
> (with a ceiling of 32MB)
> effective_cache_size = available_ram * 0.75
> (with a floor of 128MB)
>
> If they are set to an amount, then we use the amount they are set to.
>
> It would be nice to also automatically set work_mem, maint_work_mem,
> temp_buffers, etc. based on the above, but that would be considerably
> more difficult and require performance testing we haven't done yet.
My starting point for work_mem is usually:
work_mem = available_ram * 0.25 / max_connections
Like everything else, I might adjust from there, but it seems like
a sane starting point. Of course, one could easily argue for a
lower percentage or exclusion of some number of maint_work_mem
allocations.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-01-10 17:31:07 | Re: pg_dump --pretty-print-views |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-10 17:09:15 | Re: pg_dump --pretty-print-views |