Re: Large tables, ORDER BY and sequence/index scans - Mailing list pgsql-general

From John R Pierce
Subject Re: Large tables, ORDER BY and sequence/index scans
Date
Msg-id 4B4373E6.9080208@hogranch.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Large tables, ORDER BY and sequence/index scans  (Milan Zamazal <pdm@brailcom.org>)
Responses Re: Large tables, ORDER BY and sequence/index scans  (Milan Zamazal <pdm@brailcom.org>)
List pgsql-general
Milan Zamazal wrote:
>     PS> and value efective_cache_size ???
>
> effective_cache_size = 128MB
>

thats rather small unless your systme is very memory constrained.
assuming postgres is the primary disk IO consumer on this ysstem, take a
look at the 'cached' value on TOP or whatever after its been running,
thats a good first order estimate of effective_cache_size.... this is
often half or more of your physical memory.



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: frank joerdens
Date:
Subject: reason for default PGSTAT_ACTIVITY_SIZE
Next
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: pl/perl not rethrowing pl/pgsql exceptions