Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Ulrich
Subject Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?
Date
Msg-id 48C0395C.4000806@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?  ("Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?  ("Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Stop using a virtual server?
That is not possible...
> I wouldn't set shared_buffers that high
> just because things like vacuum and sorts need memory too
Okay, I understand that vacuum uses memory, but I thought sorts are done
in work_mem? I am only sorting the result of one query which will never
return more than 500 rows.

-Ulrich

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: slow update of index during insert/copy
Next
From: "Scott Marlowe"
Date:
Subject: Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?