| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(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: | 2014-05-07 14:12:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20140507141226.GE13397@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-05-07 10:07:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In the meantime, it seems like there is an emerging consensus that nobody
> much likes the existing auto-tuning behavior for effective_cache_size,
> and that we should revert that in favor of just increasing the fixed
> default value significantly. I see no problem with a value of say 4GB;
> that's very unlikely to be worse than the pre-9.4 default (128MB) on any
> modern machine.
>
> Votes for or against?
+1 for increasing it to 4GB and remove the autotuning. I don't like the
current integration into guc.c much and a new static default doesn't
seem to be worse than the current autotuning.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-05-07 14:18:29 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2014-05-07 14:10:29 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |