On 2014-02-17 11:31:56 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > On 2014-02-16 21:26:47 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > > I don't think anyone objected to increasing the defaults for work_mem > > > and maintenance_work_mem by 4x, and a number of people were in favor, > > > so I think we should go ahead and do that. If you'd like to do the > > > honors, by all means! > > > > Actually, I object to increasing work_mem by default. In my experience > > most of the untuned servers are backing some kind of web application and > > often run with far too many connections. Increasing work_mem for those > > is dangerous. > > And I still disagree with this- even in those cases. Those same untuned > servers are running dirt-simple queries 90% of the time and they won't > use any more memory from this, while the 10% of the queries which are > more complicated will greatly improve.
Uh. Paging. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
