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=1x0FStYSCEke5tu95qtjwvf7k_K53TAR90B3gb3LMNcZA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf
value, shared_buffers
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:Apparently, you don't even understand what this parameter is for.
> Lets fix e_c_s at 25% of shared_buffers and remove the parameter
> completely, just as we do with so many other performance parameters.
Setting it smaller than shared_buffers is insane.
The e_c_s is assumed to be usable for each backend trying to run queries sensitive to it. If you have dozens of such queries running simultaneously (not something I personally witness, but also not insane) and each of these queries has its own peculiar working set, then having e_c_s smaller than s_b makes sense.
I have a hard time believe that this is at all common, however. Certainly not common enough so to justify cranking the setting all the way the other direction and then removing the crank handle.
Cheers,
Jeff
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: