| From: | Samuel Gendler <sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tony Capobianco <tcapobianco(at)prospectiv(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Oracle v. Postgres 9.0 query performance |
| Date: | 2011-06-08 19:38:42 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTimPymaH7DmhKSwXf89hzG3_O+xV=w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Tony Capobianco <tcapobianco(at)prospectiv(dot)com
> wrote:
> My current setting is 22G. According to some documentation, I want to
> set effective_cache_size to my OS disk cache + shared_buffers. In this
> case, I have 4 quad-core processors with 512K cache (8G) and my
> shared_buffers is 7680M. Therefore my effective_cache_size should be
> approximately 16G? Most of our other etl processes are running fine,
> however I'm curious if I could see a significant performance boost by
> reducing the effective_cache_size.
>
>
disk cache, not CPU memory cache. It will be some significant fraction of
total RAM on the host. Incidentally, 16 * 512K cache = 8MB, not 8GB.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Samuel Gendler | 2011-06-08 19:45:33 | Re: poor performance when recreating constraints on large tables |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-06-08 19:30:50 | Re: Oracle v. Postgres 9.0 query performance |