On 17 Sep 2003 at 11:48, Nick Barr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been following a thread on this list "Inconsistent performance"
> and had a few questions especially the bits about effective_cache_size.
> I have read some of the docs, and some other threads on this setting,
> and it seems to used by the planner to either choose a sequential or
> index scan. So it will not necessarily increase performance I suppose
> but instead choose the most optimal plan. Is this correct?
That is correct.
> Danger maths ahead. Beware!!!!
>
> <maths>
> 141816K buff
> + 1781764K cached
> -----------------
> 1923580K total
>
> effective_cache_size = 1923580 / 8 = 240447.5
> </maths>
That would be bit too aggressive. I would say set it around 200K to leave room
for odd stuff.
Rest seems fine with your configuration. Of course a latest version of
postgresql is always good though..
Bye
Shridhar
--
Power is danger. -- The Centurion, "Balance of Terror", stardate 1709.2
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
