Re: keeping an index in memory

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>
Cc: Rajarshi Guha <rguha(at)indiana(dot)edu>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: keeping an index in memory
Date: 2007-10-21 14:40:05
Message-ID: 20071021144005.GD28565@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:36:00AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> What version of PG are you using and what is your shared_buffers setting?
>
> With 8G of RAM, you should start with shared_buffers around 2 - 3G, if
> you're using a modern version of PG. With that much shared memory, a
> large portion of that index should stay in RAM, as long as it's being
> used often enough that PG doesn't swap it for other data.

With that much memory, the index is likely to remain in memory no
matter what size shared_memory he has. Anything in shared_memory is
going to be in the system cache anyway. I wonder if there's something
else we havn't been told, like how big the actual table is and whether
there are any other large tables/indexes.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rajarshi Guha 2007-10-21 14:44:03 Re: keeping an index in memory
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2007-10-21 13:44:29 Re: Inheritance foreign key unexpected behaviour