cache more query results in memory?
Thanks in advance for your time.
Carl Youngblood
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
Thanks a lot for the advice Richard. I will try those things out and
report back to the list.
Carl
On 8/10/06, Richard Huxton wrote:
From your figures, you're allocating about 64MB to work_mem, which is
per sort. So, a complex query could use several times that amount. If
you don't have many
I tried setting it to 2GB and postgres wouldn't start. Didn't
investigate in much greater detail as to why it wouldn't start, but
after switching it back to 1GB it started fine.
On 8/15/06, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
See the recent thread about how old rules of thumb for shared_buf
By the way, can you please post a link to that thread?
On 8/15/06, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
See the recent thread about how old rules of thumb for shared_buffers
are now completely bunk. With 4G of memory, setting shared_buffers to 2G
could easily be reasonable. The OP really need
need to set shared_buffers
slightly lower than 2GB for postgresql to start successfully.
Carl
On 8/15/06, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 12:47:54PM -0600, Carl Youngblood wrote:
> I tried setting it to 2GB and postgres wouldn't start. Didn't
&g
