Re: random_page_cost configuration parameter

Am 28.12.21 um 17:03 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Mathias Kunter <mathiaskunter@gmail.com> writes:
>> Consider the situation
>> where the randomly fetched pages are mostly (or even entirely) cached in
>> RAM, but where the sequentially fetched pages must be mostly read from
>> disk. An example for such a scenario is a database system which uses
>> RAM-cached indices.
> 
> I think fooling with effective_cache_size is a better way to model
> that situation.

The default value of effective_cache_size is 4 GB.  Which value should 
be used instead on a system which only has 4 GB of total RAM, but still 
uses RAM-cached indices?

Thank you very much for the clarification!

Best regards
Mathias Kunter