From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
Date: | 2013-09-13 16:07:56 |
Message-ID: | 20130913160755.GD1320558@alap2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-09-13 10:50:06 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> The stock documentation advice I probably needs to be revised to so
> that's the lesser of 2GB and 25%.
I think that would be a pretty bad idea. There are lots of workloads
where people have postgres happily chugging along with s_b lots bigger
than that and see benefits.
We have a couple people reporting mostly undiagnosed (because that turns
out to be hard!) problems that seem to be avoided with smaller s_b. We
don't even remotely know enough about the problem to make such general
recommendations.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-09-13 16:23:47 | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-09-13 15:50:06 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |