| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2013-10-16 20:30:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20131016203056.GF18048@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 04:25:37PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 10/09/2013 11:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >The assumption that each connection won't use lots of work_mem is
> >also false, I think, especially in these days of connection
> >poolers.
> >
> >
>
>
> Andres has just been politely pointing out to me that my knowledge
> of memory allocators is a little out of date (i.e. by a decade or
> two), and that this memory is not in fact likely to be held for a
> long time, at least on most modern systems. That undermines
> completely my reasoning above.
>
> Given that, it probably makes sense for us to be rather more liberal
> in setting work_mem that I was suggesting.
Ah, yes, this came up last year (MMAP_THRESHOLD):
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20120730161416.GB10877@momjian.us
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-10-16 20:34:08 | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-10-16 20:25:37 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |