Re: keeping an index in memory

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Scott Marlowe
Тема Re: keeping an index in memory
Дата
Msg-id dcc563d10710211005i63a8d5e9na0edb363d00cbbe9@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: keeping an index in memory  (Rajarshi Guha <rguha@indiana.edu>)
Список pgsql-general
On 10/21/07, Rajarshi Guha <rguha@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> > With 8G of RAM, you should start with shared_buffers around 2 - 3G, if
> > you're using a modern version of PG.
>
> I can do that but I'm a little confused. Earlier postings on the list
> indicate that shared_buffers should be about 10% of the system RAM
> and that effective_cache_size can be a large fraction of RAM.

That was true with 7.4 and before because their cache management
wasn't very efficient.  With 8.0 and above, PostgreSQL can handle much
larger shared_buffer sizes.

В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Gregory Stark
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: keeping an index in memory
Следующее
От: "Jeff Larsen"
Дата:
Сообщение: Explicit Named Indexes for Constraints