Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Peter Eisentraut
Тема
Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact
Дата
Msg-id
Pine.LNX.4.30.0106230115220.727-100000@peter.localdomain
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
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

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
FAQ