| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2014-02-17 02:59:36 |
| Message-ID: | 53017B18.9000306@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/16/2014 09:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't really know about cpu_tuple_cost. Kevin's often advocated
> raising it, but I haven't heard anyone else advocate for that. I
> think we need data points from more people to know whether or not
> that's a good idea in general.
In 10 years of tuning PostgreSQL professionally, I still don't have a
mathematical model for the interaction of the various *_cost parameters
with the speeds of CPU, RAM and IO. If someone else has one, please
post it so that we can make some intelligent decisions on defaults.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-02-17 03:47:51 | Re: [bug fix] pg_ctl always uses the same event source |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-02-17 02:26:47 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |