Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:13:20 +0000 от Shaun Thomas <stho...@optionshouse.com>: >> Yeah, pgTune is pretty badly out of date. It's been on my TODO list, as >> I'm sure it has been on Greg's. > >Yeah. And unfortunately the recommendations it gives have been spreading. Take >a look at the online version: > >http://pgtune.leopard.in.ua/ > >I entered a pretty typical 92GB system, and it recommended 23GB of shared >buffers. I tried to tell the author the performance guidelines have since >changed, but it didn't help. > > >______________________________________________ > >See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related >to this email > > >-- >Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) >To make changes to your subscription: >http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Hello, author of http://pgtune.leopard.in.ua/ is here. I think everyone can do pull request to it. Old one take 25% for shared_buffers and 75% for effective_cache_size. I think I can even add selector with version of postgresql (9.0 - 9.4) and in this case change formulas for 9.4 (for example). But I don't know what type of calculation should be in this case. Does we have in some place this information? Or someone can provide it? Because this generator should be valid for most users. Thanks. --- Alexey Vasiliev -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
