Re: Simple Join

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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