On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On 10/17/2013 08:55 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I still think my previous proposal of increasing the defaults for >>> work_mem and maintenance_work_mem by 4X would serve many more >>> people well than it would serve poorly. I haven't heard anyone >>> disagree with that notion. Does anyone disagree? Should we do >>> it? >> >> >> I think that it makes sense to do that. Those are still reasonable >> defaults for a machine with 2GB of RAM, maybe even with less. >> We're talking about putting this only in a release that will come >> out in 2014. How many machines used for a database server that new >> will have less than that? > > A lot. A whole lot, more than what most people have in production with more > than that. You are forgetting a very large segment of the population who > run... VMs.
That's true, but are you actually arguing for keeping work_mem at 1MB? Even on a VM with only 1GB of RAM, work_mem=4MB is not going to cause any problems unless you're also trying to service a large number of simultaneous connections. And if you're doing that, you probably need to rethink something anyway. -- 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
