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@prospectiv.com> 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
>
>
>
>
