| From: | Jona <jonanews(at)oismail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Query plan changes after pg_dump / pg_restore |
| Date: | 2005-06-09 08:54:32 |
| Message-ID: | 42A803C8.6070507@oismail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Thanks... have notified our sys admin of that so he can make the correct
changes.
It still doesn't explain the difference in query plans though?
I mean, it's the same database server the two instances of the same
database is running on.
One instance (the live) just insists on doing the seq scan of the 50k
records in Price_Tbl and the 6.5k records in SCT2SubCatType_Tbl.
Seems weird....
Cheers
Jona
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> Thank you for the swift reply, the following is the output of the
>> SHOW ALL for shared_buffers and effective_cache_size.
>> shared_buffers: 13384
>> effective_cache_size: 4000
>> server memory: 2GB
>
>
> effective_cache_size should be 10-100x larger perhaps...
>
> Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-06-09 08:54:58 | Re: Query plan changes after pg_dump / pg_restore |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-06-09 08:25:54 | Re: Query plan changes after pg_dump / pg_restore |