Christopher Petrilli <petrilli@gmail.com> writes:
> On Apr 4, 2005 10:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The indicated fix of course is to increase shared_buffers.
> Any idea where it should be set?
Not really. An upper bound would be the total size of the finished
indexes for one 10M-row table, but one would suppose that that's
overkill. The leaf pages shouldn't have to stay in RAM to have
reasonable behavior --- the killer case is when upper-level tree
pages drop out. Or that's what I'd expect anyway.
You could probably drop the inter-insert sleep for testing purposes,
if you want to experiment with several shared_buffers values quickly.
regards, tom lane
