From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: Ulrich <ulrich.mierendorff@gmx.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:49:05 -0600
Message-ID: <dcc563d10809041249w5ff1ed59pd8964da5e3d605e7@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48C0395C.4000806@gmx.net>
References: <48C035E2.3070407@gmx.net>
<dcc563d10809041230h751129c4o93d68c083b8c72e9@mail.gmail.com>
<48C0395C.4000806@gmx.net>
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Ulrich <ulrich.mierendorff@gmx.net> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> Stop using a virtual server?
>
> That is not possible...
Sorry shoulda had a smiley face at the end of that. :) <-- there
>> 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.
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: scott.marlowe@gmail.com, ulrich.mierendorff@gmx.net
Subject: Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10809041249w5ff1ed59pd8964da5e3d605e7@mail.gmail.com>
* 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