Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([2a02:16a8:dc51::56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1g2aNp-0008H6-Mp for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:11:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1g2aNo-000552-1Z for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:11:00 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1g2aNn-00054v-QG for pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:10:59 +0000 Received: from sonic317-56.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com ([74.6.129.111]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1g2aNl-0003nK-3y for pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:10:59 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1537355454; bh=22By55vhep+xNVi9BnTPcUzfrGOqfeqXF+yYX1VGGjE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=T0n6eTx73MZjyfucOzNn9hLj+8Cq4quUUI+BNxXpi5Ba+fKbnTmC4aYoVFD2k07q8Dleh3xBJPmaSG2L5AodCF6LBdWf+BD7c1o5l9PZFfa1rTrDbCF+azUGyugifQvSHxffSyzKbskCJ5WYzlkFWrrfZ8LqKa6XtmFv4I7KTWIyXt3YE+JcV5LJeQvfvGEwITlkjKSR9UMFV9hVv7MODGekp8zb2hzywGP+hzmDukhMDNT9LlUGszru9MGFxcad27D7Vo5MxnlaHrs4sd1mEThBljRDGkjzIVcKa9fsfY/L0UGspDe/OeqT5lln1O5RDeq0rUXDx/ovfP+XGFa3hw== X-YMail-OSG: lKX79_kVM1nGc5UzoqcH3cJoX94V.Jik8rEtxMh92rA4Y1ecS2zOXhg9Fs08jdD AuxZA1K6u2esTzc9BP1iQ5j0AwqPtIRGj5QYy3hiFJIBRW508xX9J0eRqpJ0zbCZk_l.bwIqG50M mF_yZURbPSXzXbGFyu_CEZE01MB05AYXXwFMiEmYGUGdI6LBIqbEQq8uksGakSTSIlfSPhisvzNT 1PVa8CyKunpQo9eC7dWq29qEQCZU3TbFjAHpA1vWBqja_dJNnpRERateBQwUUyb.0kEfcLYDPtiU ImCv.c1.d127DmBM4TQioAL9QZEze_otXS9_jnDAZ0MQC9boKCcuq7MtRcriJuMh7Syn.R0Q7.s6 oxaWbDvhWR5kmvCrJQXknjN1DQg_MCKpVBS1qhEfjpnoSc6PPCyfibF4KDq9ve03WoNZhblv.K8Z AdFtQi1.s576QDBefozEGOvyK7gMw7NjPztjU_QVOXBc6eiBKN2YatY_FesHJzexvNwcN617oALB mD8VYf8ELmw4BzureSWUp4qBN2v1PDRn_iqMd2kmEvaeuqVRpXrY7rQzmYnQeINNX_TWzcO.Y4zF j7S81qiqEqf3xqkuPanMxSTFvuOLZttUZtsRBrBtMgJqUTy2eIL36EwlLK3lwVoLE04h3GidjZm6 3tOAkr7DJTotj4tvKDaLeShV4pu1l2l77RDg9VWwecS8Oe_gaDSsWyxMvic8ywretQIqFzeklvRL btwoyHRp81QVUvO1s4fQfHt.dIMQoablQnlMZGQg.E6gLVoCgk65DNfWcPr2e9zi82WglXDH4HeF uVVexAtnysthfuDQoDBt21Iy0mcnWUCYndu5IetTy8vWY1j9ekxjlQv8qInsX4pUkQsZk5uhhGrO mNdXGwWuzQxGT36rYsVc7DM1kvrjYpMCg9HYgPMgn1InZN0_E8p9D7ogTXV3UZmExcYhc0CrQSmr Uri1izI1vpsgkKwSpXq63hIhDUm_MS_avu_wAOuzdgS3Do5L1GxP1pbAo Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic317.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:10:54 +0000 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:06:53 +0000 (UTC) From: "Sam R." Reply-To: "Sam R." To: David Rowley Cc: Sergei Kornilov , "pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org" Message-ID: <1303501281.5352660.1537355213227@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <926456011.7484910.1537354876717@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1321418371.5650982.1537346138600.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1321418371.5650982.1537346138600@mail.yahoo.com> <5456011537348252@sas1-fed4e4c8a570.qloud-c.yandex.net> <1476619436.6435500.1537348704720@mail.yahoo.com> <926456011.7484910.1537354876717@mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_5352659_1590351575.1537355213223" X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.12406 YahooMailNeo Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0 Content-Length: 6790 List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk ------=_Part_5352659_1590351575.1537355213223 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Size of the index of one huge table has been e.g. 16-20 GB (after REINDEX).= =20 Size of such an index is quite big. =C2=A0 BR Samuli On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 2:01 PM, Sam R. = wrote: =20 Hi! Thanks for all of the comments! David wrote:> if you mention=20 > how muchRAM the server has and how big the data is now Let's say for example: RAM: 64 GB Data: 500 GB - 1.5 TB, for example.=20 ( RAM: Less would of course be better, e.g. 32 GB, but we could maybe go fo= r an even little bit bigger value than 64 GB, if needed to. ) BR Sam On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 1:11 PM, David Rowley wrote: =20 ... =20 =20 =20 ------=_Part_5352659_1590351575.1537355213223 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Size of the index of one huge table h= as been e.g. 16-20 GB (after REINDEX).

<= span id=3D"yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1537343373622_67773">Size of such an index is = quite big.
 
BR Samu= li

On Wednesday, Sept= ember 19, 2018 2:01 PM, Sam R. <samruohola@yahoo.com> wrote:


Hi!

Thanks for all of the comments!
=

David wrote:
> if you mention
> how muchRAM t= he server has and how big the data is now

Let's say for example:
RAM:= 64 GB
Data: 500 GB - 1.5 TB, for example.

( RAM: Less would of course=20 be better, e.g. 32 GB, but we could maybe go for an even little bit=20 bigger value than 64 GB, if needed to. )

BR Sam

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 1:11 = PM, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

...






------=_Part_5352659_1590351575.1537355213223--