On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Rather, I'd propose the default setting should be "-1" or something >>> "default" and "automagic" that works most of the time (but not all). > >> A cruder heuristic that might be useful is 3 * shared_buffers. > > Both parts of that work for me. It's certainly silly that the default > value of effective_cache_size is now equivalent to the default value > of shared_buffers. And I don't especially like the idea of trying to > make it depend directly on the box's physical RAM, for the same > practical reasons Robert mentioned.
For the record, I don't believe those problems would be particularly hard to solve. > It might be better to use 4 * shared_buffers, as that corresponds to the > multiple that's been the default since 8.2 or so (ie 128MB vs 32MB), and > 3x just seems kinda oddball. I suspect that would be OK, too. -- 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
