>>>>> "TL" == Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

TL> Franco Bruno Borghesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> wouldn't also increasing shared_buffers to 64 or 128 MB be a good
>> performance improvement? This way, pages belonging to heavily used
>> indexes would be already cached by the database itself.

TL> Not necessarily.  The trouble with large shared_buffers settings is you
TL> end up with lots of pages being doubly cached (both in PG's buffers and

I think if you do a lot of inserting/updating to your table, then more
SHM is better (and very high fsm settings), since you defer pushing
out the dirty pages to the disk.  For read-mostly, I agree that
letting the OS do the caching is a better way.

Vivek Khera, Ph.D.                Khera Communications, Inc.
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]       Rockville, MD       +1-240-453-8497
AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera   http://www.khera.org/~vivek/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to