From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Markus Wollny" <Markus(dot)Wollny(at)computec(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Queries taking ages in PG 8.1, have been much faster in PG<=8.0 |
Date: | 2005-12-05 14:32:53 |
Message-ID: | 29237.1133793173@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Markus Wollny" <Markus(dot)Wollny(at)computec(dot)de> writes:
>> ... What I find interesting though is
>> that the plain index scan in 8.0 is so enormously cheaper
>> than it's estimated to be. Perhaps the answer table in your
>> 8.0 installation is almost perfectly ordered by session_id?
> Not quite - there may be several concurrent sessions at any one time, but ordinarily the answers for one session-id would be quite close together, in a lot of cases even in perfect sequence, so "almost perfectly" might be a fair description, depending on the exact definition of "almost" :)
Could we see the pg_stats row for answer.session_id in both 8.0 and 8.1?
> I had set random_page_cost to 1.4 already, so I doubt that it would do much good to further reduce the value - reading the docs and the suggestions for tuning I would have thought that I should actually consider increasing this value a bit, as not all of my data will fit in memory any more. Do you nevertheless want me to try what happens if I reduce random_page_cost even further?
No, that's probably quite low enough already ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Markus Wollny | 2005-12-05 14:44:54 | Re: Queries taking ages in PG 8.1, have been much faster in PG<=8.0 |
Previous Message | Olleg Samoylov | 2005-12-05 13:56:55 | Re: two disks - best way to use them? |