| From: | Daniel Kalchev <daniel(at)digsys(dot)bg> |
|---|---|
| To: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Offering tuned config files |
| Date: | 2003-02-14 12:24:23 |
| Message-ID: | 200302141224.h1ECONY08877@dcave.digsys.bg |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>Manfred Koizar said:
> effective_cache_size = 20000 (~ 160 MB) should be more adequate for a
> 256 MB machine than the extremely conservative default of 1000. I
> admit that the effect of this change is hard to benchmark. A way too
> low (or too high) setting may lead the planner to wrong conclusions.
The default on BSD systems is 10% of the total RAM, so on a 256MB machine this
would be ~26MB or effective_cache_size = 32000.
One could always modify the kernel to support much larger value, but I doubt
this is done in many cases and the usefulness of larger buffer cache is not
obvious in the presence of many fsync calls (which might be typicall). I could
be wrong, of course :)
In any case, the default is indeed low and would prevent using indexes on
larger tables, where they are most useful.
Daniel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-02-14 12:32:31 | Re: location of the configuration files |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-02-14 12:17:17 | Re: location of the configuration files |