On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Rather, I'd propose the default setting should be "-1" or something
>>> "default" and "automagic" that works most of the time (but not all).
>
>> A cruder heuristic that might be useful is 3 * shared_buffers.
>
> Both parts of that work for me. It's certainly silly that the default
> value of effective_cache_size is now equivalent to the default value
> of shared_buffers. And I don't especially like the idea of trying to
> make it depend directly on the box's physical RAM, for the same
> practical reasons Robert mentioned.
For the record, I don't believe those problems would be particularly
hard to solve.
> It might be better to use 4 * shared_buffers, as that corresponds to the
> multiple that's been the default since 8.2 or so (ie 128MB vs 32MB), and
> 3x just seems kinda oddball.
I suspect that would be OK, too.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
