Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 03:27:17PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > More generally, Josh has made repeated comments that various proposed
> > value/formulas for work_mem are too low, but obviously the people who
> > suggested them didn't think so. So I'm a bit concerned that we don't
> > all agree on what the end goal of this activity looks like.
>
> The counter-proposal to "auto-tuning" is just to raise the default for
> work_mem to 4MB or 8MB. Given that Bruce's current formula sets it at
> 6MB for a server with 8GB RAM, I don't really see the benefit of going
> to a whole lot of code and formulas in order to end up at a figure only
> incrementally different from a new static default.

Well, the plan was going to auto-tune shared_buffers and
effective_cache_size too. We could fall back to our existing code where
effective_cache_size autotunes on shared_buffers, and we just up
work_mem's default, tell people to set shared_buffers properly, and call
it a day.

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

+ Everyone has their own god. +