| From: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Postgres General List" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: join question |
| Date: | 2008-10-22 23:53:20 |
| Message-ID: | 2f4958ff0810221653n3d4d9111p1fe8a24b252eecc4@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It looks like you are testing a case where the tables all
> fit in memory. Do you expect that to be the reality for your production
> use? If so, you might want to reduce random_page_cost to something
> close to 1 to reflect it. If not, it'd be a good idea to test with more
> realistically-sized tables before deciding what's "faster".
>
I am sure it at least reads some disc, because I can see peak in hd read -
up to about 10-20MB/s during that query's execution.
--
GJ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-23 00:25:52 | Re: join question |
| Previous Message | marcin mank | 2008-10-22 23:41:44 | Re: join question |