| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Ken Egervari" <ken(at)upfactor(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Help with tuning this query (with explain analyze finally) |
| Date: | 2005-03-04 18:29:11 |
| Message-ID: | 200503041029.11608.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-performance |
Ken,
> I did everything you said and my query does perform a bit better. I've
> been getting speeds from 203 to 219 to 234 milliseconds now. I tried
> increasing the work mem and the effective cache size from the values you
> provided, but I didn't see any more improvement. I've tried to looking
> into setting the shared buffers for Windows XP, but I'm not sure how to do
> it. I'm looking in the manual at:
Now that you know how to change the shared_buffers, want to go ahead and run
the query again?
I'm pretty concerned about your case, because based on your description I
would expect < 100ms on a Linux machine. So I'm wondering if this is a
problem with WindowsXP performance, or if it's something we can fix through
tuning.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John A Meinel | 2005-03-04 19:56:12 | Re: Help with tuning this query (with explain analyze finally) |
| Previous Message | John Arbash Meinel | 2005-03-04 17:07:35 | Re: Help with tuning this query (with explain analyze finally) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John A Meinel | 2005-03-04 19:56:12 | Re: Help with tuning this query (with explain analyze finally) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-04 18:29:02 | Re: Select in FOR LOOP Performance |