| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
| Date: | 2013-09-10 22:21:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0yHELm1C=fK8moBxT163eCSLEabQ6cmvYa4Qmd_Xp3PSw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> Merlin,
>
>> I vote 4x on the basis that for this setting (unlike almost all the
>> other memory settings) the ramifications for setting it too high
>> generally aren't too bad. Also, the o/s and temporary memory usage as
>> a share of total physical memory has been declining over time
>
> If we're doing that, then we should change our general advice on this
> setting as well.
>
> Another argument in favor: this is a default setting, and by default,
> shared_buffers won't be 25% of RAM.
>
>> (meaning, that if you have a 256gb memory server and follow the advice
>> to set to 64gb, your memory for caching is approximately 64gb).
oops, meant to say "approximately 256gb".
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Johnston | 2013-09-10 22:22:13 | Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-09-10 22:08:24 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |