| From: | David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jennifer Trey <jennifer(dot)trey(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "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 16:44:07 |
| Message-ID: | e7f9235d0904080944u39d513edqa3d8e8e651c9e95f@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Jennifer Trey <jennifer(dot)trey(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
The effective cache size setting is merely letting postgres know how
much caching it can expect the OS to be doing. If you know that the OS
isn't going to have more than 2.75 GB available for caching DB files,
then by all means reduce it. The setting by itself doesn't affect
postgres memory usage at all, though.
--
- David T. Wilson
david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Radcon Entec | 2009-04-08 16:47:44 | Re: Table has 22 million records, but backup doesn't see them |
| Previous Message | Sam Mason | 2009-04-08 16:39:02 | Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table? |