On 7 May 2014 15:07, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> I think I'm arguing myself towards using a BufferAccessStrategy of >> BAS_BULKREAD for large IndexScans, BitMapIndexScans and >> BitMapHeapScans. > > As soon as you've got some hard evidence to present in favor of such > changes, we can discuss it. I've got other things to do besides > hypothesize.
Now we have a theory to test, I'll write a patch and we can collect evidence for, or against. > In the meantime, it seems like there is an emerging consensus that nobody > much likes the existing auto-tuning behavior for effective_cache_size, > and that we should revert that in favor of just increasing the fixed > default value significantly. I see no problem with a value of say 4GB; > that's very unlikely to be worse than the pre-9.4 default (128MB) on any > modern machine. > > Votes for or against? +1 for fixed 4GB and remove the auto-tuning code. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
