Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan
Date: 2006-04-02 22:30:55
Message-ID: 200604021530.55251.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Brendan,

> But just as a follow up question to your #1 suggestion, I have 8 GB
> of ram in my production server. You're saying to set the
> effective_cache_size then to 5 GB roughly? Somewhere around 655360?
> Currently it is set to 65535. Is that something that's OS dependent?
> I'm not sure how much memory my server sets aside for disk caching.

Yes, about.  It's really a judgement call; you're looking for the approximate
combined RAM available for disk caching and shared mem.  However, this is
just used as a way of estimating the probability that the data you want is
cached in memory, so you're just trying to be order-of-magnitude accurate,
not to-the-MB accurate.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brendan Duddridge 2006-04-03 04:20:00 Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan
Previous Message Niklas Johansson 2006-04-02 21:08:44 Re: Trigger vs Rule