pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 22:01:33 +0200
Message-ID: <48C03E9D.60508@gmx.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10809041249w5ff1ed59pd8964da5e3d605e7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48C035E2.3070407@gmx.net>
	<dcc563d10809041230h751129c4o93d68c083b8c72e9@mail.gmail.com>
	<48C0395C.4000806@gmx.net>
	<dcc563d10809041249w5ff1ed59pd8964da5e3d605e7@mail.gmail.com>

Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Ulrich <ulrich.mierendorff@gmx.net> wrote:
>   
>>> 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.
>>     
>
> You can probably play with larger shared memory, but I'm betting that
> the fact that you're running under a VM is gonna weigh eveything down
> a great deal, to the point that you're tuning is going to have minimal
> effect.
>   
Hmm... Why do you think so? Is there a reason for it or do other people 
have problems with virtual servers and databases?
I have reserved cpu power and reserved ram (okay, not much, but it is 
reserved ;-) ), the only thing I dont have is reserved file-cache.

-Ulrich



view thread (6+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <48C03E9D.60508@gmx.net>
Permalink:  ../48C03E9D.60508@gmx.net/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/48C03E9D.60508@gmx.net

 · 

reply

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: <48C03E9D.60508@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