Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>>I accept the "run from init.d" argument. So then, is there a case for
>>increasing the limits that initdb works with, to reflect the steep
>>rise we have seen in typically available memory at the low end?
>>
>>
>
>There is a compromise that I think we cannot make. For production
>deployment, shared buffers are typically sized at about 10% to 25% of
>available phyiscal memory. I don't think we want to have a default
>installation of PostgreSQL that takes 10% or more of memory just like
>that. It just doesn't look good.
>
>
I have a single instance of apache running on this machine. It's not
doing anything, but even so it's consuming 20% of physical memory. By
contrast, my 3 postmasters are each consuming 0.5% of memory. All with
default settings. I don't think we are in any danger of looking bad for
being greedy. If anything we are in far greater danger of looking bad
from being far too conservative and paying a performance price for that.
There's nothing magical about the numbers we use.
>So the question whether initdb should by default consider up to 1000 or
>up to 4000 buffers is still worth discussion, but doesn't solve the
>tuning issue to a reasonable degree.
>
>
>
>
True, but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing anyway.
cheers
andrew