Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.30.0106230115220.727-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> This does remind me that I'd been thinking of suggesting that we
> raise the default -B to something more reasonable, maybe 1000 or so
> (yielding an 8-meg-plus shared memory area).

On Modern(tm) systems, 8 MB is just as arbitrary and undersized as 1 MB.
So while for real use, manual tuning will still be necessary, on test
systems we'd use significant amounts of memory for nothing, or not start
up at all.

Maybe we could look around what the default limit is these days, but
raising it to arbitrary values will just paint over the fact that user
intervention is still required and that there is almost no documentation
for this.

--
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact