Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Ulrich <ulrich.mierendorff@xxxxxxx> 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


[Postgresql General]     [Postgresql PHP]     [PHP Users]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Yosemite]

  Powered by Linux