Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?

Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Ulrich <ulrich(dot)mierendorff(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>
>>> I wouldn't set shared_buffers that high
>>> just because things like vacuum and sorts need memory too
>>>
>> Okay, I understand that vacuum uses memory, but I thought sorts are done in
>> work_mem? I am only sorting the result of one query which will never return
>> more than 500 rows.
>>
>
> You can probably play with larger shared memory, but I'm betting that
> the fact that you're running under a VM is gonna weigh eveything down
> a great deal, to the point that you're tuning is going to have minimal
> effect.
>
Hmm... Why do you think so? Is there a reason for it or do other people
have problems with virtual servers and databases?
I have reserved cpu power and reserved ram (okay, not much, but it is
reserved ;-) ), the only thing I dont have is reserved file-cache.

-Ulrich