>>>Manfred Koizar said:
 > effective_cache_size = 20000 (~ 160 MB) should be more adequate for a
 > 256 MB machine than the extremely conservative default of 1000.  I
 > admit that the effect of this change is hard to benchmark.  A way too
 > low (or too high) setting may lead the planner to wrong conclusions.

The default on BSD systems is 10% of the total RAM, so on a 256MB machine this 
would be ~26MB or effective_cache_size = 32000.

One could always modify the kernel to support much larger value, but I doubt 
this is done in many cases and the usefulness of larger buffer cache is not 
obvious in the presence of many fsync calls (which might be typicall). I could 
be wrong, of course :)

In any case, the default is indeed low and would prevent using indexes on 
larger tables, where they are most useful.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to