On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 03:27:17PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > More generally, Josh has made repeated comments that various proposed > > value/formulas for work_mem are too low, but obviously the people who > > suggested them didn't think so. So I'm a bit concerned that we don't > > all agree on what the end goal of this activity looks like. > > The counter-proposal to "auto-tuning" is just to raise the default for > work_mem to 4MB or 8MB. Given that Bruce's current formula sets it at > 6MB for a server with 8GB RAM, I don't really see the benefit of going > to a whole lot of code and formulas in order to end up at a figure only > incrementally different from a new static default.
Well, the plan was going to auto-tune shared_buffers and effective_cache_size too. We could fall back to our existing code where effective_cache_size autotunes on shared_buffers, and we just up work_mem's default, tell people to set shared_buffers properly, and call it a day. -- 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
