Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough?

From: "Sam R(dot)" <samruohola(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, "pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough?
Date: 2018-09-19 11:06:53
Message-ID: 1303501281.5352660.1537355213227@mail.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Size of the index of one huge table has been e.g. 16-20 GB (after REINDEX).

Size of such an index is quite big.
 
BR Samuli

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 2:01 PM, Sam R. <samruohola(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:

Hi!
Thanks for all of the comments!
David wrote:> if you mention
> how muchRAM the server has and how big the data is now
Let's say for example:
RAM: 64 GB
Data: 500 GB - 1.5 TB, for example.
( RAM: Less would of course be better, e.g. 32 GB, but we could maybe go for an even little bit bigger value than 64 GB, if needed to. )
BR Sam

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 1:11 PM, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

...

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2018-09-19 13:42:23 Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough?
Previous Message Sam R. 2018-09-19 11:01:16 Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough?