| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2014-05-06 15:41:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLmaJ7HAtiBA0wi+nrXk-ymdXkLdDbJivT+VEk7Yz9MZw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6 May 2014 15:18, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Lets fix e_c_s at 25% of shared_buffers and remove the parameter
>> completely, just as we do with so many other performance parameters.
>
> Apparently, you don't even understand what this parameter is for.
> Setting it smaller than shared_buffers is insane.
You know you can't justify that comment and so do I. What workload is
so badly affected as to justify use of the word insane in this
context?
I can read code. But it appears nobody apart from me actually does, or
at least understand the behaviour that results.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-05-06 16:12:28 | pgsql: pgindent run for 9.4 |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2014-05-06 15:19:56 | Re: New pg_lsn type doesn't have hash/btree opclasses |