Re: A question on the query planner

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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