From: | Jared Carr <jared(at)89glass(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A question on the query planner |
Date: | 2003-12-03 23:21:50 |
Message-ID: | 3FCE700E.5070206@89glass.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Greg Stark wrote:
>Jared Carr <jared(at)89glass(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>
>>The patch definitely makes things more consistent...unfortunately it is more
>>consistent toward the slower execution times. Of course I am looking at this
>>simply from a straight performance standpoint and not a viewpoint of what
>>*should* be happening. At any rate here are the query plans with the various
>>settings.
>>
>>
>
>The optimizer seems to be at least considering reasonable plans now. It seems
>from the estimates that you need to rerun analyze. You might try "vacuum full
>analyze" to be sure.
>
>Also, you might try raising effective_cache_size and/or lowering
>random_page_size (it looks like something around 2 might help).
>
>
>
Yep, I had forgotten to run vacuum since I had patched it :P. The
overall performance is definitely better,
I will go ahead and tweak the server settings and see what I can get.
Thanks again for all the help.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2003-12-03 23:50:11 | Re: Has anyone run on the new G5 yet |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-03 23:17:37 | Re: A question on the query planner |