From: | Kenji Morishige <kenjim(at)juniper(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Claus Guttesen <kometen(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, kenjim(at)juniper(dot)net |
Subject: | Re: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & Adaptec RAID 2200S |
Date: | 2006-03-18 00:08:55 |
Message-ID: | 20060318000855.GB14661@juniper.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Thanks guys, I'm studying each of your responses and am going to start to
experiement. Unfortunately, I don't have another box with similar specs to
do a perfect experiment with, but I think I'm going to go ahead and open a
service window to ungrade the box to FBSD6.0 and apply some other changes. It
also gives me the chance to go from 8.0.1 to 8.1 series which I been wanting
to do as well. Thanks guys and I will see if any of your suggestions make
a noticable difference. I also have been looking at log result of slow queries
and making necessary indexes to make those go faster.
-Kenji
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 12:29:17AM +0100, Claus Guttesen wrote:
> > 4. Are there any other settings in the conf file I could try to tweak?
>
> One more thing :-)
>
> I stumbled over this setting, this made the db (PG 7.4.9) make use of
> the index rather than doing a sequential scan and it reduced a query
> from several minutes to some 20 seconds.
>
> random_page_cost = 2 (original value was 4).
>
> Another thing you ought to do is to to get the four-five most used
> queries and do an explain analyze in these. Since our website wasn't
> prepared for this type of statistics I simply did a tcpdump, grep'ed
> all select's, sorted them and sorted them unique so I could see which
> queries were used most.
>
> regards
> Claus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-18 04:41:11 | Re: Help optimizing a slow index scan |
Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2006-03-18 00:00:37 | Re: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & |