Re: keeping an index in memory - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Martijn van Oosterhout
Subject Re: keeping an index in memory
Date
Msg-id 20071021144005.GD28565@svana.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: keeping an index in memory  (Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>)
Responses Re: keeping an index in memory  (Rajarshi Guha <rguha@indiana.edu>)
List pgsql-general
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:36:00AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> What version of PG are you using and what is your shared_buffers setting?
>
> With 8G of RAM, you should start with shared_buffers around 2 - 3G, if
> you're using a modern version of PG.  With that much shared memory, a
> large portion of that index should stay in RAM, as long as it's being
> used often enough that PG doesn't swap it for other data.

With that much memory, the index is likely to remain in memory no
matter what size shared_memory he has. Anything in shared_memory is
going to be in the system cache anyway. I wonder if there's something
else we havn't been told, like how big the actual table is and whether
there are any other large tables/indexes.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

Attachment

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Scott Marlowe"
Date:
Subject: Re: Inheritance foreign key unexpected behaviour
Next
From: Rajarshi Guha
Date:
Subject: Re: keeping an index in memory