| From: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lefteris <lsidir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Air-traffic benchmark |
| Date: | 2010-01-07 15:16:07 |
| Message-ID: | 2f4958ff1001070716u6c6f5d6di8946fa13aad9dfc1@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Lefteris <lsidir(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org> wrote:
>> On 7.1.2010 15:23, Lefteris wrote:
>>
>>> I think what you all said was very helpful and clear! The only part
>>> that I still disagree/don't understand is the shared_buffer option:))
>>
>> Did you ever try increasing shared_buffers to what was suggested (around
>> 4 GB) and see what happens (I didn't see it in your posts)?
>
> No I did not to that yet, mainly because I need the admin of the
> machine to change the shmmax of the kernel and also because I have no
> multiple queries running. Does Seq scan uses shared_buffers?
Think of the shared buffer as a cache. It will help subsequent queries
running to not have to use disk.
--
GJ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-01-07 15:18:54 | Re: Massive table (500M rows) update nightmare |
| Previous Message | Lefteris | 2010-01-07 15:05:33 | Re: Air-traffic benchmark |