Hello Shridhar,
Thanks for the reply.
> There is no reason why you should not do it. How remains to be a point of
> disagreement though. You don't allocate 16GB of shared buffers to
postgresql.
> That won't give you performance you need.
I think in the other thread, Tom was alluding to this too. What is it about
the shared buffer cache behaviour that makes it inefficient when it is very
large? (assuming that the address space it occupies is allocated to RAM
pages)
Is there a good place I could look for some in depth details of its
behaviour?
Many thanks,
Andy
