Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
Date: 2013-10-09 14:35:28
Message-ID: 20131009143528.GU22450@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 04:32:44PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-10-09 10:30:46 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Josh Berkus suggested here that work_mem and maintenance_work_mem could
> > be auto-tuned like effective_cache_size:
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/50ECCF93.3060101@agliodbs.com
> >
> > The attached patch implements this, closely matching the default values
> > for the default shared_buffers value:
>
> There imo is no correlation between correct values for shared_buffers
> and work_mem at all. They really are much more workload dependant than
> anything.

Well, that is true, but the more shared_buffers you allocate, the more
work_mem you _probably_ want to use. This is only a change of the
default.

Effectively, if every session uses one full work_mem, you end up with
total work_mem usage equal to shared_buffers.

We can try a different algorithm to scale up work_mem, but it seems wise
to auto-scale it up to some extent based on shared_buffers.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2013-10-09 14:38:01 Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-10-09 14:32:44 Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem