From: | Cosimo Streppone <cosimo(at)streppone(dot)it> |
---|---|
To: | C Storm <christian(dot)storm(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Postgresql Performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Update on high concurrency OLTP application and Postgres |
Date: | 2006-09-22 20:48:16 |
Message-ID: | 45144C10.2070501@streppone.it |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Christian Storm wrote:
>>At the moment, my rule of thumb is to check out the ANALYZE VERBOSE
>>messages to see if all table pages are being scanned.
>>
>> INFO: "mytable": scanned xxx of yyy pages, containing ...
>>
>>If xxx = yyy, then I keep statistics at the current level.
>>When xxx is way less than yyy, I increase the numbers a bit
>>and retry.
>>
>>It's probably primitive, but it seems to work well.
>
> What heuristic do you use to up the statistics for such a table?
No heuristics, just try and see.
For tables of ~ 10k pages, I set statistics to 100/200.
For ~ 100k pages, I set them to 500 or more.
I don't know the exact relation.
> Once you've changed it, what metric do you use to
> see if it helps or was effective?
I rerun an analyze and see the results... :-)
If you mean checking the usefulness, I can see it only
under heavy load, if particular db queries run in the order
of a few milliseconds.
If I see normal queries that take longer and longer, or
they even appear in the server's log (> 500 ms), then
I know an analyze is needed, or statistics should be set higher.
--
Cosimo
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bucky Jordan | 2006-09-22 21:18:24 | Re: recommended benchmarks |
Previous Message | Vivek Khera | 2006-09-22 20:34:04 | Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" |