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

Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ulrich <ulrich(dot)mierendorff(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?
Date: 2008-09-04 19:49:05
Message-ID: dcc563d10809041249w5ff1ed59pd8964da5e3d605e7@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Ulrich <ulrich(dot)mierendorff(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> Stop using a virtual server?
>
> That is not possible...

Sorry shoulda had a smiley face at the end of that. :)  <-- there

>> I wouldn't set shared_buffers that high
>> just because things like vacuum and sorts need memory too
>
> Okay, I understand that vacuum uses memory, but I thought sorts are done in
> work_mem? I am only sorting the result of one query which will never return
> more than 500 rows.

You can probably play with larger shared memory, but I'm betting that
the fact that you're running under a VM is gonna weigh eveything down
a great deal, to the point that you're tuning is going to have minimal
effect.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2008-09-04 19:54:53
Subject: Re: limit clause breaks query planner?
Previous:From: UlrichDate: 2008-09-04 19:39:08
Subject: Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?

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