Re: work_mem and shared_buffers

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Campbell, Lance" <lance(at)uiuc(dot)edu>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: work_mem and shared_buffers
Date: 2007-11-18 14:29:39
Message-ID: 1195396179.4217.1.camel@ebony.site
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 13:12 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:

> Note that my best time was at around 16 Meg work_mem. This data set
> is MUCH bigger than 16 Meg, it's around 300-400 Meg. But work_mem
> optimized out at 16 Meg. Btw, I tried it going as high as 768 Meg,
> and it was still slower than 16M.

Remember that what you have shown is that for *this* dataset 16Mb is the
optimum value. It is not a recommended value for all cases.

--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2007-11-18 14:41:59 Re: work_mem and shared_buffers
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2007-11-18 10:34:15 Performance problem (outer join + view + non-strict functions)‏