>>>"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" said:> > > [with the new effective_cache_size = 6400]> > This seems way too low for a
512Mb machine. Why does your OS> only use so little for filecache ? Is the rest used for processes ?> For the above
numberyou need to consider OS cache and shared_buffers.> You can approximatly add them together minus a few %.
As far as I am aware, 10% for buffer space is the default for BSD operating
systems... although I have seen buffer space = 50% on MacOS X. There is no
problem to increase the buffer space in kernel, although I am not very
confident this will give much better overall performance (well, more memory
can be added as well).
> With the data you gave, a calculated value for effective_cache_size> would be 29370, assuming the random_page_cost is
actually4 on your> machine. 29370 might be a slight overestimate, since your new table> will probably still be somewhat
sortedby date within one IP.
random_page_cost is 4.
If the select into then cluster do this, then yes, it is possible, but not
guaranteed.
I will try with increased effective_cache_size.
Postmaster is started with -N 128 -B 256 -i -o "-e -S 10240"
Daniel
