> shared_buffers = 12000 will use 12000*8192 bytes (i.e about 96Mb). It is
> shared, so no matter how many connections you have it will only use 96M.

Now I use the figure of 27853

> >
> >Will the increasing in effective cache size to arround 200000 make a little
> bit
> >improvement ? Do you think so?
> >
Decrease the sort mem too much [8196] make the performance much slower so I use
sort_mem = 16384
and leave effective cache to the same value , the result is quite better but I
should wait for tomorrow morning [official hour]  to see the end result.

> >
> I would leave it at the figure you proposed (128897), and monitor your
> performance.
> (you can always increase it later and see what the effect is).
Yes , I use this figure.

If the result still poor , putting more ram "6-8Gb" [also putting more money
too] will solve the problem ?
Thanks ,

---------------------------(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