On 6 May 2014 23:28, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
+1 -- 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
