Re: keeping an index in memory

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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