Oooo...some bad math there. Thanks. On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 12:38 -0700, Samuel Gendler wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Tony Capobianco > <tcapobianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > My current setting is 22G. According to some documentation, I > want to > set effective_cache_size to my OS disk cache + > shared_buffers. In this > case, I have 4 quad-core processors with 512K cache (8G) and > my > shared_buffers is 7680M. Therefore my effective_cache_size > should be > approximately 16G? Most of our other etl processes are > running fine, > however I'm curious if I could see a significant performance > boost by > reducing the effective_cache_size. > > > > > > disk cache, not CPU memory cache. It will be some significant > fraction of total RAM on the host. Incidentally, 16 * 512K cache = > 8MB, not 8GB. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_cache > > > > -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
