| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Strahinja Kustudić <strahinjak(at)nordeus(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server |
| Date: | 2012-10-10 20:48:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpaFon0fKMk6ikdpAf0jKfHrNh+caNunKnJ30jozX2K17w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Strahinja Kustudić
<strahinjak(at)nordeus(dot)com> wrote:
> @Claudio So you are basically saying that if I have set effective_cache_size
> to 10GB and I have 10 concurrent processes which are using 10 different
> indices which are for example 2GB, it would be better to set the
> effective_cache size to 1GB? Since if I leave it at 10GB each running
> process query planner will think the whole index is in cache and that won't
> be true? Did I get that right?
Yep. You might get away with setting 2GB, if you're willing to bet
there won't be 100% concurrency. But the safest setting would be 1G.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-10-10 21:03:15 | Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server |
| Previous Message | Strahinja Kustudić | 2012-10-10 20:12:51 | Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server |