| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2013-10-10 22:28:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20131010222806.GU7092@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:14:27AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> The assumption that each connection won't use lots of work_mem is also
> false, I think, especially in these days of connection poolers.
>
>
> I don't follow that. Why would using a connection pooler change the multiples
> of work_mem that a connection would use?
I assume that a connection pooler would keep processes running longer,
so even if they were not all using work_mem, they would have that memory
mapped into the process, and perhaps swapped out.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2013-10-10 22:32:13 | Re: [PoC] pgstattuple2: block sampling to reduce physical read |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-10-10 22:27:17 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |