Re: again on index usage

>>>"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" said:
>
> > [with the new effective_cache_size = 6400]
>
> This seems way too low for a 512 Mb machine. Why does your OS
> only use so little for filecache ? Is the rest used for processes ?
> For the above number you need to consider OS cache and shared_buffers.
> You can approximatly add them together minus a few %.

As far as I am aware, 10% for buffer space is the default for BSD operating
systems... although I have seen buffer space = 50% on MacOS X. There is no
problem to increase the buffer space in kernel, although I am not very
confident this will give much better overall performance (well, more memory
can be added as well).

> With the data you gave, a calculated value for effective_cache_size
> would be 29370, assuming the random_page_cost is actually 4 on your
> machine. 29370 might be a slight overestimate, since your new table
> will probably still be somewhat sorted by date within one IP.

random_page_cost is 4.

If the select into then cluster do this, then yes, it is possible, but not
guaranteed.

I will try with increased effective_cache_size.

Postmaster is started with -N 128 -B 256 -i -o "-e -S 10240"

Daniel