Re: Rapidly decaying performance repopulating a large table

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> What have you got shared_buffers set to? If it's not enough to cover
> the working set for your indexes, that might be the (other) problem.
>

shared_buffers = 1536MB

Is there a way to get the size of a specific index, on that note?
There seem to be access functions for the relation + indices, and for
the relation by itself, but not a specific index out of possibly
several. I could increase shared_buffers some, but client apps on the
same machine occasionally also have hefty memory requirements (not
during these regeneration runs, but it seems like restarting the
server with a new shared_buffers value before and after the
regeneration is a bit of overkill).

--
- David T. Wilson
david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com