Re: Rapidly decaying performance repopulating a large table - Mailing list pgsql-general

From David Wilson
Subject Re: Rapidly decaying performance repopulating a large table
Date
Msg-id e7f9235d0804221718v6fb0e9edw3312d1555688e60a@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rapidly decaying performance repopulating a large table  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Rapidly decaying performance repopulating a large table  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>  What have you got shared_buffers set to?  If it's not enough to cover
>  the working set for your indexes, that might be the (other) problem.
>

shared_buffers = 1536MB

Is there a way to get the size of a specific index, on that note?
There seem to be access functions for the relation + indices, and for
the relation by itself, but not a specific index out of possibly
several. I could increase shared_buffers some, but client apps on the
same machine occasionally also have hefty memory requirements (not
during these regeneration runs, but it seems like restarting the
server with a new shared_buffers value before and after the
regeneration is a bit of overkill).

--
- David T. Wilson
david.t.wilson@gmail.com

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Clemens Schwaighofer
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres Encoding conversion problem
Next
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Re: How to modify ENUM datatypes?