Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
Date
Msg-id 4BCDA94E0200002500030BF8@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (David Kerr <dmk@mr-paradox.net>)
Responses Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (David Kerr <dmk@mr-paradox.net>)
List pgsql-performance
David Kerr <dmk@mr-paradox.net> wrote:

> Incidentally the code is written to work like this :
>
> while (read X lines in file){
> Process those lines.
> write lines to DB.
> }

Unless you're selecting from multiple database tables in one query,
effective_cache_size shouldn't make any difference.  There's
probably some other reason for the difference.

A couple wild shots in the dark:

Any chance the source files were cached the second time, but not the
first?

Do you have a large checkpoint_segments setting, and did the second
run without a new initdb?

-Kevin

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
Next
From: Kris Jurka
Date:
Subject: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?