Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers
| От | Jeff Janes |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMkU=1wqP7h=Dp4tL5HSKAe9Jihn9RhgM6sVvevGekmGOgkqXQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
On 05/06/2014 10:35 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:Unfortunately nobody has the time/resources to do the kind of testing
> +1. In my view, we probably should have set it to a much higher
> absolute default value. The main problem with setting it to any
> multiple of shared_buffers that I can see is that shared_buffers is a
> very poor proxy for what effective_cache_size is supposed to
> represent. In general, the folk wisdom around sizing shared_buffers
> has past its sell-by date.
required for a new recommendation for shared_buffers.
I think it is worse than that. I don't think we know what such testing would even look like. SSD? BBU? max_connections=20000 with 256 cores? pgbench -N? capture and replay of Amazon's workload?
If we could spell out/agree upon what kind of testing we would find convincing, that would probably go a long way to getting some people to work on carrying out the tests. Unless the conclusion was "please have 3TB or RAM and a 50 disk RAID", then there might be few takers.
Cheers,
Jeff
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: