On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:26 PM, David Jarvis <thangalin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > shared_buffers = 1GB > temp_buffers = 32MB > work_mem = 32MB > maintenance_work_mem = 64MB > effective_cache_size = 256MB Shouldn't effective_cache_size be significantly larger? -- Rob Wultsch wultsch@xxxxxxxxx -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
