On 6 May 2014 22:54, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> I read the code, think what to say and then say what I think, not >> rely on dogma. >> >> I tried to help years ago by changing the docs on e_c_s, but that's >> been mostly ignored down the years, as it is again here. > > Well, for what it's worth, I've encountered systems where setting > effective_cache_size too low resulted in bad query plans, but I've > never encountered the reverse situation.
I agree with that. Though that misses my point, which is that you can't know that all of that memory is truly available on a server with many concurrent users. Choosing settings that undercost memory intensive plans are not the best choice for a default strategy in a mixed workload when cache may be better used elsewhere, even if such settings make sense for some individual users. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
