Robert, >> 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?
That's the problem: It Depends. One thing in particular which is an issue with calculating against max_connections is that users who don't need 100 connections seldom *reduce* max_connections. So that developer laptop which only needs 3 connections is still going to have a max_connections of 100, just like the DW server where m_c should probably be 30. > 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. Seems fine to me. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
