Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?

From: Ulrich <ulrich(dot)mierendorff(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?
Date: 2008-09-04 19:39:08
Message-ID: 48C0395C.4000806@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Stop using a virtual server?
That is not possible...
> 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.

-Ulrich

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2008-09-04 19:49:05 Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?
Previous Message Greg Smith 2008-09-04 19:35:36 Re: slow update of index during insert/copy