| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, 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: | 2014-05-06 22:28:32 |
| Message-ID: | 28745.1399415312@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I basically think the auto-tuning we've installed for
> effective_cache_size is stupid. Most people are going to run with
> only a few GB of shared_buffers, so setting effective_cache_size to a
> small multiple of that isn't going to make many more people happy than
> just raising the value - say from the current default of 128MB to, oh,
> 4GB - especially because in my experience queries aren't very
> sensitive to the exact value; it just has to not be way too small. I
> bet the number of PostgreSQL users who would be made happy by a much
> higher hard-coded default is not too different from the number that
> will be made happy by the (completely unprincipled) auto-tuning.
There is a lot to be said for that argument, especially considering
that we're not even really happy with the auto-tuning mechanism,
never mind the behavior it's trying to implement.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-05-06 22:29:40 | Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-06 22:24:47 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pgindent run for 9.4 |