X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F194C9FB34F for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:25:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 55423-09-2 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:24:29 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-130.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D999FB291 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:24:16 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (or-67-76-146-141.sta.embarqhsd.net [67.76.146.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k820O8Gn011154 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:24:09 -0700 Message-ID: <44F8CF32.9040606@commandprompt.com> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:24:18 -0700 From: "Joshua D. Drake" Organization: Command Prompt, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Cramer CC: Merlin Moncure , Guillaume Cottenceau , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: increasing shared buffers: how much should be removed References: <87veo7a5dn.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.3, clamav-milter version 0.88.3 on projects.commandprompt.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (lists.commandprompt.com [192.168.2.159]); Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:24:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.202 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200609/12 X-Sequence-Number: 20698 >> >> I think 'shared buffers' is one of the most overrated settings from a >> performance standpoint. however you must ensure there is enough for >> things the server does besides caching. It used to be a bigger deal >> than it is in modern versionf of postgresql modern operating systems. Previous to 8.1 I would agree with you, but as of 8.1 it is probably the most underrated. Joshua D. Drake >> >> merlin >> > So if shared buffers is the most overrated, what do you consider the > proper way of tuning ? >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to >> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not >> match >> > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/