Re: keeping an index in memory - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: keeping an index in memory
Date
Msg-id dcc563d10710211005i63a8d5e9na0edb363d00cbbe9@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: keeping an index in memory  (Rajarshi Guha <rguha@indiana.edu>)
List pgsql-general
On 10/21/07, Rajarshi Guha <rguha@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> > With 8G of RAM, you should start with shared_buffers around 2 - 3G, if
> > you're using a modern version of PG.
>
> I can do that but I'm a little confused. Earlier postings on the list
> indicate that shared_buffers should be about 10% of the system RAM
> and that effective_cache_size can be a large fraction of RAM.

That was true with 7.4 and before because their cache management
wasn't very efficient.  With 8.0 and above, PostgreSQL can handle much
larger shared_buffer sizes.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: keeping an index in memory
Next
From: "Jeff Larsen"
Date:
Subject: Explicit Named Indexes for Constraints