Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20131010011155.GG7092@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 08:55:33PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > I disagree. I think we can get a forumla that is certainly better than > > a fixed value. I think the examples I have shown do have better value > > than a default fixed value. I am open to whatever forumula people think > > is best, but I can't see how a fixed value is a win in general. > > To really do auto-tuning correctly, we need to add a GUC, or some > platform-dependent code, or both, for the amount of memory on the > machine, which is not and should not be assumed to have anything to do > with shared_buffers, which is often set to very small values like > 256MB on Windows, and even on Linux, may not be more than 2GB even on > a very large machine. With that, we could set a much better value for > effective_cache_size, and it would help here, too. If you are setting shared_buffers low, you probably want the others low too, or can change them. > I would like to really encourage careful reflection before we start > making a lot of changes in this area. If we're going to make a change > here, let's take the time to try to do something good, rather than > slamming something through without real consideration. I still want We get into the "it isn't perfect so let's do nothing" which is where we have been for years. I want to get out of that. I am not sure how much consideration you want, but I am willing to keep inproving it. No value is going to be perfect, even for users who know their workload. > to know why this is better than setting work_mem to 4MB and calling it > good. I accept that the current default is too low; I do not accept For servers that are not dedicated, a fixed value can easily be too large, and for a larger server, the value can easily be too small. Not sure how you can argue that a fixed value could be better. > that the correct value has anything to do with the size of > shared_buffers. Well, an open item is to add an available_memory GUC and base everything on that, including shared_buffers. That would allow Windows-specific adjustments for the default. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: