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..


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

Reply via email to