On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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.
What about it? -- 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
