Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Date: 2003-02-13T03:08:26Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-performance
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> I know you like it in that range, and 4 or 8 MB of buffers by default
> should not be a problem.  But personally I think if the optimal buffer
> size does not depend on both the physical RAM you want to dedicate to
> PostgreSQL and the nature and size of the database, then we have achieved
> a medium revolution in computer science. ;-)

But this is not about "optimal" settings.  This is about "pretty good"
settings.  As long as we can get past the knee of the performance curve,
I think we've done what should be expected of a default parameter set.

I believe that 1000 buffers is enough to get past the knee in most
scenarios.  Again, I haven't got hard evidence, but that's my best
guess.

			regards, tom lane