On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:39:51PM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > On 10/11/2013 01:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> In summary, I think we need to: > >> > >> * decide on new defaults for work_mem and maintenance_work_mem > >> * add an initdb flag to allow users/packagers to set shared_bufffers? > >> * add an autovacuum_work_mem setting? > >> * change the default for temp_buffers? > > > > If we're changing defaults, bgwriter_lru_maxpages and vacuum_cost_limit > > could also use a bump; those thresholds were set for servers with < 1GB > > of RAM. > > +1 on those. > > Also, I have often had to bump cpu_tuple_cost into the 0.03 to 0.05 > range to get a good plan. In general, this makes the exact > settings of *_page_cost less fussy, and I have hit situations where > I was completely unable to get a good plan to emerge without > bumping cpu_tuple_cost relative to the other cpu costs. I know that > it's possible to engineer a workload that shows any particular cost > adjustment to make things worse, but in real-life production > environments I have never seen an increase in this range make plan > choice worse.
So, would anyone like me to create patches for any of these items before we hit 9.4 beta? We have added autovacuum_work_mem, and increasing work_mem and maintenance_work_mem by 4x is a simple operation. Not sure about the others. Or do we just keep this all for 9.5? -- 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
