On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 04:32:44PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-10-09 10:30:46 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Josh Berkus suggested here that work_mem and maintenance_work_mem could > > be auto-tuned like effective_cache_size: > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/50eccf93.3060...@agliodbs.com > > > > The attached patch implements this, closely matching the default values > > for the default shared_buffers value: > > There imo is no correlation between correct values for shared_buffers > and work_mem at all. They really are much more workload dependant than > anything.
Well, that is true, but the more shared_buffers you allocate, the more work_mem you _probably_ want to use. This is only a change of the default. Effectively, if every session uses one full work_mem, you end up with total work_mem usage equal to shared_buffers. We can try a different algorithm to scale up work_mem, but it seems wise to auto-scale it up to some extent based on shared_buffers. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
