| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(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: | 2014-05-07 14:31:07 |
| Message-ID: | 536A43AB.909@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/07/2014 10:12 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-05-07 10:07:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In the meantime, it seems like there is an emerging consensus that nobody
>> much likes the existing auto-tuning behavior for effective_cache_size,
>> and that we should revert that in favor of just increasing the fixed
>> default value significantly. I see no problem with a value of say 4GB;
>> that's very unlikely to be worse than the pre-9.4 default (128MB) on any
>> modern machine.
>>
>> Votes for or against?
> +1 for increasing it to 4GB and remove the autotuning. I don't like the
> current integration into guc.c much and a new static default doesn't
> seem to be worse than the current autotuning.
>
>
+1. If we ever want to implement an auto-tuning heuristic it seems we're
going to need some hard empirical evidence to support it, and that
doesn't seem likely to appear any time soon.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-05-07 14:40:02 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-07 14:29:36 | Re: PGDLLEXPORTing all GUCs? |