| From: | Jennifer Trey <jennifer(dot)trey(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Massa, Harald Armin" <chef(at)ghum(dot)de>, Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning. |
| Date: | 2009-04-08 16:24:40 |
| Message-ID: | 863606ec0904080924oa0f8196ha0d51d4f131f6a17@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Scott, thank you.
I think I might have misunderstood the effective cache size. Its measured in
8kB blocks. So the old number 449697 equals 3.5 GB, which is quite much.
Should I lower this? I had plans to use 2.75GB max. Can I put 2.75GB there?
Should I leave it?
Also, Greg. Since I use Java, prepared statements are quite natural. And I
read this part on the guide which I understand you are part of :
Should I change this value? Not sure... :S
Worried about the locks... whats your though on this? Should I just leave it
alone?
Sincerely / Jennifer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sam Mason | 2009-04-08 16:39:02 | Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table? |
| Previous Message | Scott Mead | 2009-04-08 16:15:56 | Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning. |