Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?

[Ulrich <ulrich.mierendorff@xxxxxxx>]

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