On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 06:20:13PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 05:01:24PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > FYI, this auto-tuning is not for us, who understand the parameters > and > > how they interact, but for the 90% of our users who would benefit > from > > better defaults. It is true that there might now be cases where you > > would need to _reduce_ work_mem from its default, but I think the > new > > computed default will be better for most users. > > > > > > > > then we should to use as base a how much dedicated RAM is for PG - not > shared > > buffers. > > Yes, that was Josh Berkus's suggestion, and we can switch to that, > though it requires a new GUC parameter, and then shared_buffers gets > tuned on that. > > I went with shared_buffers because unlike the others, it is a fixed > allocation quantity, while the other are much more variable and harder > to set. I figured we could keep our 25% estimate of shared_buffers and > everything else would fall in line. > > > I understand, but your proposal change a logic to opposite direction. Maybe > better is wait to new GUC parameter, and then implement this feature, so be > logical and simply understandable.
OK, I can easily do that. What do others think? -- 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
