Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server

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

 



On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> @Claudio So you are basically saying that if I have set effective_cache_size
>> to 10GB and I have 10 concurrent processes which are using 10 different
>> indices which are for example 2GB,
>
> It is the size of the table, not the index, which is primarily of
> concern.  However, that mostly factors into how postgres uses
> effective_cache_size, not how you set it.

You're right, I just noticed that a few minutes ago (talk about telepathy).


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance


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

  Powered by Linux