[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       pgsql-performance
Subject:    Re: [PERFORM] Very big insert/join performance problem (bacula)
From:       "Eric Comeau" <ecomeau () signiant ! com>
Date:       2009-07-27 10:43:07
Message-ID: h4k0c2$gpa$1 () news ! hub ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

>>> It really has very little impact. It only affects index scans, and
>>> even then only if effective_cache_size is less than the size of the
>> table.
>>>
>>> Essentially, when this kicks in, it models the effect that if you are
>>> index scanning a table much larger than the size of your cache, you
>>> might have to reread some blocks that you previously read in during
>>> *that same index scan*.
>>
>> Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me. Still, I think the doc could be
>> improved on this point (sorry to be a bit obsessed with that, but I'm one 
>> of
>> the french translators, so I like the doc to be perfect :) )
>
>Yes, I agree.  I was confused for quite a long time, too, until I read
>the code.  I think many people think this value is much more important
>than it really is.
>
>(That having been said, I have no current plans to write such a doc
>patch myself.)
>
>...Robert

How about adding a comment to the wiki performance page....
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tuning_Your_PostgreSQL_Server



-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]