On 05/06/2014 05:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
I read the code, think what to say and then say what I think, not
rely on dogma.
I tried to help years ago by changing the docs on e_c_s, but that's
been mostly ignored down the years, as it is again here.
Well, for what it's worth, I've encountered systems where setting
effective_cache_size too low resulted in bad query plans, but I've
never encountered the reverse situation.
I have encountered both. Recently I discovered that a client's
performance problems were solved pretty instantly by reducing a
ridiculously high setting down to something more reasonable (in this
case about 50% of physical RAM is what we set it to).
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
