From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rajarshi Guha <rguha(at)indiana(dot)edu>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: keeping an index in memory |
Date: | 2007-10-21 14:40:05 |
Message-ID: | 20071021144005.GD28565@svana.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:36:00AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> What version of PG are you using and what is your shared_buffers setting?
>
> With 8G of RAM, you should start with shared_buffers around 2 - 3G, if
> you're using a modern version of PG. With that much shared memory, a
> large portion of that index should stay in RAM, as long as it's being
> used often enough that PG doesn't swap it for other data.
With that much memory, the index is likely to remain in memory no
matter what size shared_memory he has. Anything in shared_memory is
going to be in the system cache anyway. I wonder if there's something
else we havn't been told, like how big the actual table is and whether
there are any other large tables/indexes.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rajarshi Guha | 2007-10-21 14:44:03 | Re: keeping an index in memory |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2007-10-21 13:44:29 | Re: Inheritance foreign key unexpected behaviour |