Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(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: 2013-09-11 13:18:30
Message-ID: 20130911131830.GQ16378@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 03:08:24PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Merlin,
>
> > I vote 4x on the basis that for this setting (unlike almost all the
> > other memory settings) the ramifications for setting it too high
> > generally aren't too bad. Also, the o/s and temporary memory usage as
> > a share of total physical memory has been declining over time
>
> If we're doing that, then we should change our general advice on this
> setting as well.

Uh, what general advice? I don't see 4x mentioned anywhere.

> Another argument in favor: this is a default setting, and by default,
> shared_buffers won't be 25% of RAM.

So, are you saying you like 4x now?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2013-09-11 13:27:24 Re: Triggers on foreign tables
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-09-11 10:43:21 Re: Compression of full-page-writes