Greg, > > Well we won't eliminate any problems unless we actually override the > effective_cache_size setting by clipping it to shared_buffers. I don't > really see much of a problem doing that. The only case where that > would annoy someone was if they're intentionally understating > effective_cache_size to push the planner into avoiding nested loops > and I doin't think it's a powerful enough knob to be very likely used > that way. >
My experience from PostgreSQL on Windows: effective_cache_size should reflect the value of "system cache" from task manager. shared_buffers (on windows) should be rather small. My real-workload-tests (no benchmarks, real usage of DB-Server) showed that big shared buffers on Windows have a negative effect on PostgreSQL performance. I have found no explanation WHY it is this way. Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 no fx, no carrier pigeon - EuroPython 2009 will take place in Birmingham - Stay tuned!
