From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | David Lang <dlang(at)invendra(dot)net> |
Cc: | Mitch Skinner <lists(at)arctur(dot)us>, Kevin Brown <blargity(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Simple Join |
Date: | 2005-12-16 21:11:19 |
Message-ID: | 43A32D77.4020500@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>
>>
>> Right on. Some of these "coerced" plans may perform much better. If
>> so, we can look at tweaking your runtime config: e.g.
>>
>> effective_cache_size
>> random_page_cost
>> default_statistics_target
>>
>> to see if said plans can be chosen "naturally".
>
>
> Mark, I've seen these config options listed as tweaking targets fairly
> frequently, has anyone put any thought or effort into creating a test
> program that could analyse the actual system and set the defaults based
> on the measured performance?
>
I am sure this has been discussed before, I found this thread -
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-07/msg00189.php
but I seem to recall others (but offhand can't find any of them).
I think that the real difficultly here is that the construction of the
test program is non trivial - for instance, the best test program for
tuning *my* workload is my application with its collection of data, but
it is probably not a good test program for *anyone else's* workload.
cheers
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-12-16 21:56:52 | Re: Lots of postmaster processes (fwd) |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-12-16 20:26:55 | Re: 8.1 - pg_autovacuum question |