| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(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: | 2013-09-11 16:53:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20130911165329.GS16378@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:43:07PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian escribió:
>
> > > So, are you saying you like 4x now?
> >
> > Here is an arugment for 3x. First, using the documented 25% of RAM, 3x
> > puts our effective_cache_size as 75% of RAM, giving us no room for
> > kernel, backend memory, and work_mem usage. If anything it should be
> > lower than 3x, not higher.
>
> The other argument I see for the 3x value is that it is a compromise.
> People with really large servers will want to increase it; people with
> very small servers will want to reduce it.
Yes, you could make the argument that 2x is the right default,
especially considering work_mem.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-09-11 17:41:48 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-09-11 15:43:07 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |