Greg,
Well we won't eliminate any problems unless we actually override the
effective_cache_size setting by clipping it to shared_buffers. I don't
really see much of a problem doing that. The only case where that
would annoy someone was if they're intentionally understating
effective_cache_size to push the planner into avoiding nested loops
and I doin't think it's a powerful enough knob to be very likely used
that way.
My experience from PostgreSQL on Windows: effective_cache_size should reflect the value of "system cache" from task manager. shared_buffers (on windows) should be rather small.
My real-workload-tests (no benchmarks, real usage of DB-Server) showed that big shared buffers on Windows have a negative effect on PostgreSQL performance. I have found no explanation WHY it is this way.
Harald
--
GHUM Harald Massa
persuadere et programmare
Harald Armin Massa
Spielberger Straße 49
70435 Stuttgart
0173/9409607
no fx, no carrier pigeon
-
EuroPython 2009 will take place in Birmingham - Stay tuned!