Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan

Hi Josh,

Thanks. I've adjusted my effective_cache_size to 5 GB, so we'll see
how that goes.

I'm also doing some query and de-normalization optimizations so we'll
see how those go too.

____________________________________________________________________
Brendan Duddridge | CTO | 403-277-5591 x24 |  brendan@clickspace.com

ClickSpace Interactive Inc.
Suite L100, 239 - 10th Ave. SE
Calgary, AB  T2G 0V9

http://www.clickspace.com

On Apr 2, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:

> 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
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
>                http://archives.postgresql.org
>