Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Claudio Freire
Subject Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server
Date
Msg-id CAGTBQpaPx-Q1S5NPgCQpgabmTJYCGqWJ+qN++-v=BKo+namy=w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> @Claudio So you are basically saying that if I have set effective_cache_size
>> to 10GB and I have 10 concurrent processes which are using 10 different
>> indices which are for example 2GB,
>
> It is the size of the table, not the index, which is primarily of
> concern.  However, that mostly factors into how postgres uses
> effective_cache_size, not how you set it.

You're right, I just noticed that a few minutes ago (talk about telepathy).


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server
Next
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server