From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Åkerud <zilch(at)home(dot)se>, PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact |
Date: | 2001-06-22 23:21:19 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0106230115220.727-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> This does remind me that I'd been thinking of suggesting that we
> raise the default -B to something more reasonable, maybe 1000 or so
> (yielding an 8-meg-plus shared memory area).
On Modern(tm) systems, 8 MB is just as arbitrary and undersized as 1 MB.
So while for real use, manual tuning will still be necessary, on test
systems we'd use significant amounts of memory for nothing, or not start
up at all.
Maybe we could look around what the default limit is these days, but
raising it to arbitrary values will just paint over the fact that user
intervention is still required and that there is almost no documentation
for this.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-22 23:22:04 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] [Help] Temporary Table: Implicitely created index not shown in \d i |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-22 23:17:40 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] [Help] Temporary Table: Implicitely created index not shown in \d i |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-22 23:29:58 | Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-22 23:13:09 | Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact |