Re: Optimizer not using index on 120M row table - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: Optimizer not using index on 120M row table
Date
Msg-id 20030429181933.Q66185@flake.decibel.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Optimizer not using index on 120M row table  ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>)
Responses Re: Optimizer not using index on 120M row table  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Optimizer not using index on 120M row table  ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 09:46:20AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> There are a few settings that you pretty much have to change on bigger
> hardware to get good performance.
>
> shared_buffers (1000 to 10000 is a good place to start.) measured in 8k
> blocks.
> effective_cache_size (size of OS file system and disk caches measured in
> 8k blocks)

Should effective_cache_size include the size of shared_buffers? Also,
FreeBSD doesn't seem to want to use more than about 300M for disk
caching, so I currently have shared_buffers set to 90000 or about 700M
(the box has 2G, but pgsql currently has to share with Sybase). Are
there any issues with setting shared_buffers so high? Anyone know how to
make FBSD do more caching on it's own, or should I just let pgsql handle
it?
--
Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!)                    jim@nasby.net
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Andrew J. Kopciuch"
Date:
Subject: tsearch - txtidx input
Next
From: Hadley Willan
Date:
Subject: Re: Simple question about messages