From: Ulrich <ulrich.mierendorff@gmx.net>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:39:08 +0200
Message-ID: <48C0395C.4000806@gmx.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10809041230h751129c4o93d68c083b8c72e9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48C035E2.3070407@gmx.net>
<dcc563d10809041230h751129c4o93d68c083b8c72e9@mail.gmail.com>
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Stop using a virtual server?
That is not possible...
> I wouldn't set shared_buffers that high
> just because things like vacuum and sorts need memory too
Okay, I understand that vacuum uses memory, but I thought sorts are done
in work_mem? I am only sorting the result of one query which will never
return more than 500 rows.
-Ulrich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: ulrich.mierendorff@gmx.net, scott.marlowe@gmail.com
Subject: Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?
In-Reply-To: <48C0395C.4000806@gmx.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox