Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
Date
Msg-id 16030.1392648483@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem  (Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>)
Responses Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem  (Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>)
List pgsql-hackers
Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> writes:
> On 17/02/14 15:26, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't really know about cpu_tuple_cost.  Kevin's often advocated
>> raising it, but I haven't heard anyone else advocate for that.  I
>> think we need data points from more people to know whether or not
>> that's a good idea in general.

> Processors have been getting faster, relative to spinning rust, over the 
> years.  So it puzzles me why anybody would want to raise the 
> cpu_tuple_cost!

The case where this is sensible is where your database mostly fits in
RAM, so that the cost of touching the underlying spinning rust isn't
so relevant.  The default cost settings are certainly not very good
for such scenarios.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: CREATE FOREIGN TABLE ( ... LIKE ... )
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT