From: | Jona <jonanews(at)oismail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Query plan changes after pg_dump / pg_restore |
Date: | 2005-06-09 13:42:24 |
Message-ID: | 42A84740.4010003@oismail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Thank you for the insight, any suggestion as to what table / columns I
should compare between the databases?
Cheers
Jona
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Jona wrote:
>
>
>
>>It's the same (physical) server as well as the same PostGreSQL daemon,
>>so yes.
>>
>>
>
>The only thing that can differ then is the statistics collected and the
>amount of dead space in tables and indexes (but since you both reindex and
>run vacuum full that should not be it).
>
>So comparing the statistics in the system tables is the only thing I can
>think of that might bring some light on the issue. Maybe someone else have
>some ideas.
>
>And as KL said, the effective_cache_size looked like it was way to small.
>With that setting bigger then pg should select index scans more often. It
>doesn't explain why the databases behave like they do now, but it might
>make pg select the same plan nevertheless.
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-09 14:54:58 | Re: Query plan changes after pg_dump / pg_restore |
Previous Message | Josh Close | 2005-06-09 13:35:29 | Re: [Npgsql-general] index out of range |