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