I have a postgresql 7.4.8-server with 4 GB ram.
#effective_cache_size = 1000# typically 8KB each
This is computed by sysctl -n vfs.hibufspace / 8192 (on FreeBSD). So I
changed it to:
effective_cache_size = 27462# typically 8KB each
Apparently this formula is no longer
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 16:54 +0200, Claus Guttesen wrote:
I have a postgresql 7.4.8-server with 4 GB ram.
#effective_cache_size = 1000# typically 8KB each
This is computed by sysctl -n vfs.hibufspace / 8192 (on FreeBSD). So I
changed it to:
effective_cache_size = 27462#
Apparently this formula is no longer relevant on the FreeBSD systems as
it can cache up to almost all the available RAM. With 4GB of RAM, one
could specify most of the RAM as being available for caching, assuming
that nothing but PostgreSQL runs on the server -- certainly 1/2 the RAM
On Oct 11, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Claus Guttesen wrote:
Thank you for your reply. Does this apply to FreeBSD 5.4 or 6.0 on
amd64 (or both)?
It applies to FreeBSD = 5.0.
However, I have not been able to get a real answer from the FreeBSD
hacker community on what the max buffer space usage will
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.
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
Thanks.
Some theoretical questions.
The documentation says that Effective Cache Size sets the optimizer's
assumption
about the effective size of the disk cache ( that is, the portion of the
kernel's disk
cache that will be used for PostgreSQL data files ).
What then will be the effect of
