>>>>> "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
