Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Brown
Subject Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]
Date
Msg-id 20030214032605.GA18932@filer
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Offering tuned config files  ("Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>)
List pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > Uh ... do we have a basis for recommending any particular sets of
> > > parameters for these different scenarios?  This could be a good idea
> > > in the abstract, but I'm not sure I know enough to fill in the details.
>
> Sure.
> Mostly-Read database, few users, good hardware, complex queries:
>     = High shared buffers and sort mem, high geqo and join collapse thresholds,
>         moderate fsm settings, defaults for WAL.
> Same as above with many users and simple queries (webserver) =
>     same as above, except lower sort mem and higher connection limit
> High-Transaction Database =
>     Moderate shared buffers and sort mem, high FSM settings, increase WAL files
> and buffers.
> Workstation =
>     Moderate to low shared buffers and sort mem, moderate FSM, defaults for WAL,
> etc.
> Low-Impact server = current defaults, more or less.

Okay, but there should probably be one more, called "Benchmark".  The
real problem is what values to use for it.  :-)



--
Kevin Brown                          kevin@sysexperts.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne"
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] More benchmarking of wal_buffers
Next
From: Kevin Brown
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] More benchmarking of wal_buffers