Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-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


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-22 23:29:58
Subject: Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-22 23:13:09
Subject: Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-22 23:22:04
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] [Help] Temporary Table: Implicitely created index not shown in \d i
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-22 23:17:40
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] [Help] Temporary Table: Implicitely created index not shown in \d i

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group