| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jona <jonanews(at)oismail(dot)com> |
| 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 08:54:58 |
| Message-ID: | 42A803E2.8000706@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Is effective_cache_size set the same on the test and live?
Jona wrote:
> 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 | Michael Ryan S. Puncia | 2005-06-09 09:19:55 | pg_autovacuum settings |
| Previous Message | Jona | 2005-06-09 08:54:32 | Re: Query plan changes after pg_dump / pg_restore |