On 05/06/2014 10:35 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > +1. In my view, we probably should have set it to a much higher > absolute default value. The main problem with setting it to any > multiple of shared_buffers that I can see is that shared_buffers is a > very poor proxy for what effective_cache_size is supposed to > represent. In general, the folk wisdom around sizing shared_buffers > has past its sell-by date.
Unfortunately nobody has the time/resources to do the kind of testing required for a new recommendation for shared_buffers. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
