| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Cc: | Russ Brown <pickscrape(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Increase default effective_cache_size? |
| Date: | 2006-09-23 23:10:33 |
| Message-ID: | 29442.1159053033@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Russ Brown <pickscrape(at)gmail(dot)com> writes on pgsql-general:
> On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 23:39 -0400, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> Also make sure that you've set effective_cache_size
>> correctly (I generally set it to total memory - 1G, assuming the
>> server has at least 4G in it).
> Thank you: the problem was the effective_cache_size (which I hadn't
> changed from the default of 1000). This machine doesn't have loads of
> RAM, but I knocked it up to 65536 and now the query uses the index,
> without having to change the statistics.
Considering recent discussion about how 8.2 is probably noticeably more
sensitive to effective_cache_size than prior releases, I wonder whether
it's not time to adopt a larger default value for that setting. The
current default of 1000 pages (8Mb) seems really pretty silly for modern
machines; we could certainly set it to 10 times that without problems,
and maybe much more. Thoughts?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-09-24 00:14:45 | Re: Increase default effective_cache_size? |
| Previous Message | Russ Brown | 2006-09-23 22:58:48 | Re: Optimising a query requiring seqscans=0 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-09-24 00:14:45 | Re: Increase default effective_cache_size? |
| Previous Message | Russ Brown | 2006-09-23 22:58:48 | Re: Optimising a query requiring seqscans=0 |