On 6 May 2014 23:28, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I basically think the auto-tuning we've installed for
>> effective_cache_size is stupid. Most people are going to run with
>> only a few GB of shared_buffers, so setting effective_cache_size to a
>> small multiple of that isn't going to make many more people happy than
>> just raising the value - say from the current default of 128MB to, oh,
>> 4GB - especially because in my experience queries aren't very
>> sensitive to the exact value; it just has to not be way too small. I
>> bet the number of PostgreSQL users who would be made happy by a much
>> higher hard-coded default is not too different from the number that
>> will be made happy by the (completely unprincipled) auto-tuning.
>
> There is a lot to be said for that argument, especially considering
> that we're not even really happy with the auto-tuning mechanism,
> never mind the behavior it's trying to implement.
+1
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services