Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > I basically think the auto-tuning we've installed for > effective_cache_size is stupid. Most people are going to run with > only a few GB of shared_buffers, so setting effective_cache_size to a > small multiple of that isn't going to make many more people happy than > just raising the value - say from the current default of 128MB to, oh, > 4GB - especially because in my experience queries aren't very > sensitive to the exact value; it just has to not be way too small. I > bet the number of PostgreSQL users who would be made happy by a much > higher hard-coded default is not too different from the number that > will be made happy by the (completely unprincipled) auto-tuning.
There is a lot to be said for that argument, especially considering that we're not even really happy with the auto-tuning mechanism, never mind the behavior it's trying to implement. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers