From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net> |
Cc: | Doug Y <dylists(at)ptd(dot)net>, psql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Clarification on some settings |
Date: | 2004-05-13 07:31:29 |
Message-ID: | 40A32451.4010801@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Note that effective_cache_size is merely a hint to that planner to say
"I have this much os buffer cache to use" - it is not actually allocated.
It is shared_buffers that will hurt you if it is too high (10000 - 25000
is the usual sweet spot).
best wishes
Mark
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
>>
>> Increasing the effective cache and sort mem didn't seem to make much
>> of a difference. I'm guessing the eff cache was probably raised a bit
>> too much, and shared_buffers is way to high.
>
>
> I agree. For shared buffers start with 5000 and increase in batches on
> 1000. Or set it to a high value and check with ipcs for maximum shared
> memory usage. If share memory usage peaks at 100MB, you don't need
> more than say 120MB of buffers.
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabio Panizzutti | 2004-05-13 12:42:51 | Query plan on identical tables differs . Why ? |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2004-05-13 06:44:07 | Re: Clarification on some settings |