On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> 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.
Agreed. But what do you think the value SHOULD be on such a system? I suggest that it's pretty reasonable to assume that even a developer's personal machine will likely have 8GB or so by the time PostgreSQL comes out, so tuning work_mem on that basis is not unreasonable. Plus, even if it has less, a developer probably won't have 100 connections. I guess the point I'm making here is that raising the default value is not mutually exclusive with auto-tuning. We could quadruple the current defaults for work_mem and maintenance_work_mem and be better off right now, today. Then, we could improve things further in the future if and when we agree on an approach to auto-tuning. And people who don't use the auto-tuning will still have a better default. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
