* 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.
> > I don't really know about cpu_tuple_cost. Kevin's often advocated
> > raising it, but I haven't heard anyone else advocate for that. I
> > think we need data points from more people to know whether or not
> > that's a good idea in general.
>
> FWIW It's a good idea in my experience.
I'm in favor of this also but I'm also in the camp of "gee, more data
would be nice".
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
