On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 07:39:47PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-02-17 13:33:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > > wrote: > > >> 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. > > > > What about it? > > It's often the source of a good portion of the queries and load in web > applications. Multiple joins and more than one row... I have several > time seen stats changes or bad to-be-sorted columns cause large amounts > of memory to be used.
Perhaps we should have said there was "general agreement" to increase work_mem and maintenence_work_mem by 4x, not that there was 100% agreement. It would be nice to have 100% agreement, but if we _require_ that then defaults would probably never be changed. > Anyway, I've stated my opinion that I do not think it's a good idea to > raise that particular default (while agreeing with all the others) and I > know I am in the minority, so I don't think we need to argue this out... OK, good. If you did feel there was need for more discussion, we would need to push this change to PG 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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers