Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C873B5DC1F
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  6 Sep 2011 16:48:04 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 73375-09
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  6 Sep 2011 19:47:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zeus.simkin.ca (zeus.simkin.ca [72.51.27.124])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623ABB5DC1D
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  6 Sep 2011 16:47:58 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from pc-1072.reinvent.com (office.reinvent.com [72.51.27.254])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by zeus.simkin.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 105252700AD;
	Tue,  6 Sep 2011 12:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Hodgson <ahodgson@simkin.ca>
Organization: Simkin Network Consulting
To: Richard Shaw <richard@aggress.net>
Subject: Re: Rather large LA
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:47:55 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-11-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
References: <F757E48F-2B4F-496D-951B-B04ED98F8FD6@aggress.net>
	<201109061221.59362.ahodgson@simkin.ca>
	<C80C67C9-0B10-4E27-85D4-4255415C7153@aggress.net>
In-Reply-To: <C80C67C9-0B10-4E27-85D4-4255415C7153@aggress.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201109061247.56100.ahodgson@simkin.ca>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.404 tagged_above=-10 required=5
	tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.504
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201109/70
X-Sequence-Number: 44846

On September 6, 2011 12:35:35 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
> Thanks for the advice, It's one under consideration at the moment.   What
> are your thoughts on increasing RAM and shared_buffers?
> 

If it's running OK after the startup rush, and it seems to be, I would leave 
them alone. More RAM is always good, but I don't see it helping with this 
particular issue.