Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?
Date
Msg-id [email protected]
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?  (Ulrich <[email protected]>)
Responses Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?
List pgsql-performance
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Ulrich <[email protected]> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> Stop using a virtual server?
>
> That is not possible...

Sorry shoulda had a smiley face at the end of that. :)  <-- there

>> 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.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Ulrich
Date:
Subject: Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?
Next
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: limit clause breaks query planner?