Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2014-02-17 11:31:56 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Andres Freund (andres@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