From: | "Bas Scheffers" <bas(at)scheffers(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Not using index |
Date: | 2004-02-12 16:03:51 |
Message-ID: | 2191.217.205.40.94.1076601831.squirrel@io.scheffers.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Scot,
scott.marlowe said:
> So, to start with, try changing random page cost. you can change it for
As "unrealistic" as it should be, I need <1 before Postgres takes the
bait. Initialy 0.7, to be exact, but later It also worked at a little
higher setting of 1. I have given PG 96Mb of memory to play with, so
likely all my data will be in cache. So no very fast disk (6MB/sec reads),
but loads of RAM.
Should I try tweaking any of the other parameters?
> performance of seq versus index. you'll often find that a query that
> screams when the caches are full of your data is quite slow when the cache
> is empty.
True, but as this single query is going to be the work horse of the web
service I am developing, it is likely all data will always be in memory,
even if I'd have to stick several gigs of ram in.
Thanks,
Bas.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ericson Smith | 2004-02-12 16:13:42 | Looking for Developer with Postgresql experience |
Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2004-02-12 15:44:53 | Re: I want to use postresql for this app, but... |