Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?

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.