Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 18:04:48
Message-ID: 536A75C0.6030701@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 05/06/2014 10:35 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> +1. In my view, we probably should have set it to a much higher
> absolute default value. The main problem with setting it to any
> multiple of shared_buffers that I can see is that shared_buffers is a
> very poor proxy for what effective_cache_size is supposed to
> represent. In general, the folk wisdom around sizing shared_buffers
> has past its sell-by date.

Unfortunately nobody has the time/resources to do the kind of testing
required for a new recommendation for shared_buffers.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2014-05-07 18:08:24 Re: Issue with GRANT/COMMENT ON FUNCTION with default
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-05-07 17:55:28 Re: Wanted: jsonb on-disk representation documentation