Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Optimizer not using index on 120M row table

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: jim(at)nasby(dot)net
Cc: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>,pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Optimizer not using index on 120M row table
Date: 2003-04-30 04:14:34
Message-ID: 19621.1051676074@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
"Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> Should effective_cache_size include the size of shared_buffers?

Yes ... although IMHO, if shared_buffers is large enough to materially
affect that number, it's too large ;-)

> FreeBSD doesn't seem to want to use more than about 300M for disk
> caching, so I currently have shared_buffers set to 90000 or about 700M
> (the box has 2G, but pgsql currently has to share with Sybase). Are
> there any issues with setting shared_buffers so high?

Plenty, see many past threads in pgsql-performance and other lists.
There are strong reasons to think that you should let the kernel do the
bulk of the caching work.

			regards, tom lane


In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2003-04-30 04:20:49
Subject: Re: qsort (was Re: Solaris)
Previous:From: ed despardDate: 2003-04-30 04:00:51
Subject: rules question

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group