Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200604021530.55251.josh@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan (Brendan Duddridge <brendan@clickspace.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan
Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Brendan, > But just as a follow up question to your #1 suggestion, I have 8 GB > of ram in my production server. You're saying to set the > effective_cache_size then to 5 GB roughly? Somewhere around 655360? > Currently it is set to 65535. Is that something that's OS dependent? > I'm not sure how much memory my server sets aside for disk caching. Yes, about. It's really a judgement call; you're looking for the approximate combined RAM available for disk caching and shared mem. However, this is just used as a way of estimating the probability that the data you want is cached in memory, so you're just trying to be order-of-magnitude accurate, not to-the-MB accurate. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: