On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 01:39, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> > As a result, I was intending to inflate the value of
> > effective_cache_size to closer to the amount of unused RAM on some of
> > the machines I admin (once I've verified that they all have a unified
> > buffer cache). Is that correc
Thomas F.O'Connell wrote:
As a result, I was intending to inflate the value of
effective_cache_size to closer to the amount of unused RAM on some of
the machines I admin (once I've verified that they all have a unified
buffer cache). Is that correct?
Effective cache size is IMHO a "bogus" param
Thomas,
> As a result, I was intending to inflate the value of
> effective_cache_size to closer to the amount of unused RAM on some of
> the machines I admin (once I've verified that they all have a unified
> buffer cache). Is that correct?
Currently, yes. Right now, e_c_s is used just to inform
Simon,
As a postgres DBA, I find your comments about how not to use
effective_cache_size instructive, but I'm still not sure how I should
arrive at a target value for it.
On most of the machines on which I admin postgres, I generally set
shared_buffers to 10,000 (using what seems to have been t
