On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Mike Ivanov<mi...@activestate.com> wrote: > Scott Marlowe wrote: >>> >>> The postgres shared cache is at 4G, is that too big? >>> >> >> Not for a machine with 32Gig of ram. >> >> > > He could even add some more.
Definitely. Really depends on how big his data set is, and how well pgsql is at caching it versus the kernel. I've found that with a really big dataset, like 250G to 1T range, the kernel is almost always better at caching a lot of it, and if you're operating on a few hundred meg at a time anyway, then smaller shared_buffers helps. OTOH, if you're working on a 5G data set, it's often helpful to turn up shared_buffers enough to cover that. OTOH, if you're running a busy transaction oriented db (lots of small updates) larger shared_buffers will slow you down quite a bit. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
