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

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
Date
Msg-id 20140217161903.GF18388@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.

> 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.

FWIW It's a good idea in my experience.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem