Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Åkerud <zilch(at)home(dot)se>, PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact
Date: 2001-06-22 23:21:19
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0106230115220.727-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> This does remind me that I'd been thinking of suggesting that we
> raise the default -B to something more reasonable, maybe 1000 or so
> (yielding an 8-meg-plus shared memory area).

On Modern(tm) systems, 8 MB is just as arbitrary and undersized as 1 MB.
So while for real use, manual tuning will still be necessary, on test
systems we'd use significant amounts of memory for nothing, or not start
up at all.

Maybe we could look around what the default limit is these days, but
raising it to arbitrary values will just paint over the fact that user
intervention is still required and that there is almost no documentation
for this.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-06-22 23:22:04 Re: Re: [GENERAL] [Help] Temporary Table: Implicitely created index not shown in \d i
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-06-22 23:17:40 Re: Re: [GENERAL] [Help] Temporary Table: Implicitely created index not shown in \d i

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-06-22 23:29:58 Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-06-22 23:13:09 Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact