In-Reply-To: <b42b73150609011249p612ccd27gbb5ee4db9b5b10f4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87veo7a5dn.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan>
	<b42b73150609011249p612ccd27gbb5ee4db9b5b10f4@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <E3AD303F-06FE-4034-A176-3F532720A386@fastcrypt.com>
Cc: "Guillaume Cottenceau" <gc@mnc.ch>,
 pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
Subject: Re: increasing shared buffers: how much should be removed from OS
	filesystem cache?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 19:22:51 -0400
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>


On 1-Sep-06, at 3:49 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:

> On 01 Sep 2006 19:00:52 +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau <gc@mnc.ch> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been looking at the results from the pg_statio* tables, to
>> view the impact of increasing the shared buffers to increase
>> performance.
>>
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>