| From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Rajarshi Guha" <rguha(at)indiana(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | "Bill Moran" <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: keeping an index in memory |
| Date: | 2007-10-21 17:05:55 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10710211005i63a8d5e9na0edb363d00cbbe9@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 10/21/07, Rajarshi Guha <rguha(at)indiana(dot)edu> wrote:
>
> > With 8G of RAM, you should start with shared_buffers around 2 - 3G, if
> > you're using a modern version of PG.
>
> I can do that but I'm a little confused. Earlier postings on the list
> indicate that shared_buffers should be about 10% of the system RAM
> and that effective_cache_size can be a large fraction of RAM.
That was true with 7.4 and before because their cache management
wasn't very efficient. With 8.0 and above, PostgreSQL can handle much
larger shared_buffer sizes.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Larsen | 2007-10-21 18:24:44 | Explicit Named Indexes for Constraints |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-10-21 16:56:14 | Re: keeping an index in memory |