Re: planner parameters

Torsten Förtsch <torsten(dot)foertsch(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:

> Is there an other way to make the planner use generate the 1st
> plan?

The planner cost factors are based on the assumption that a
moderate percentage of random page reads will need to actually go
out to disk.  If a high percentage of pages are in cache, you may
want to reduce random_page_cost to something closer to (or even
equal to) seq_page_cost.  I generally find I get better plans if I
raise cpu_tuple_cost to 0.03.  effective_cache_size should
generally be between 50% and 75% of machine RAM.  If these changes
(or others of their ilk) cause costs to be estimated in a way which
more nearly matches reality, better plans will be chosen.

> Why does it generate the 2nd plan at all?

It has the lowest estimated cost, based on your memory
configuration and cost factors.

> Does the planner take into account what is currently present in
> shared memory?

No.  If you search the archives you can probably find previous
discussions of whether it would be a good idea to do so; the
consensus has been that it would not be.

If you have further performance-related questions, please review
this page so that you can provide enough information to allow
people to give the most helpful advice:

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SlowQueryQuestions

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company