Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: work_mem and shared_buffers
- From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
- To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
- Cc: "Campbell, Lance" <lance(at)uiuc(dot)edu>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: work_mem and shared_buffers
- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:29:39 +0000
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 13:12 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote: > Note that my best time was at around 16 Meg work_mem. This data set > is MUCH bigger than 16 Meg, it's around 300-400 Meg. But work_mem > optimized out at 16 Meg. Btw, I tried it going as high as 768 Meg, > and it was still slower than 16M. Remember that what you have shown is that for *this* dataset 16Mb is the optimum value. It is not a recommended value for all cases. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: work_mem and shared_buffers
- From: Scott Marlowe
- Re: work_mem and shared_buffers
- References:
- work_mem and shared_buffers
- From: Campbell, Lance
- Re: work_mem and shared_buffers
- From: Heikki Linnakangas
- Re: work_mem and shared_buffers
- From: Campbell, Lance
- Re: work_mem and shared_buffers
- From: Scott Marlowe
- work_mem and shared_buffers
- Prev by Date: Performance problem (outer join + view + non-strict func tions)
- Next by Date: Re: work_mem and shared_buffers
- Previous by thread: Re: work_mem and shared_buffers
- Next by thread: Re: work_mem and shared_buffers
- Indexes: