Re: again on index usage

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Daniel Kalchev" <daniel(at)digsys(dot)bg>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: again on index usage
Date: 2002-01-10 14:46:54
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA41EB49D@m0114.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> [with the new effective_cache_size = 6400]

This seems way too low for a 512 Mb machine. Why does your OS
only use so little for filecache ? Is the rest used for processes ?
For the above number you need to consider OS cache and shared_buffers.
You can approximatly add them together minus a few %.

With the data you gave, a calculated value for effective_cache_size
would be 29370, assuming the random_page_cost is actually 4 on your
machine. 29370 might be a slight overestimate, since your new table
will probably still be somewhat sorted by date within one IP.

Try to measure IO/s during the seq scan and during the index path
and calculate the ratio. This should be done during an average workload
on the machine.

Andreas

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alessio Bragadini 2002-01-10 14:49:26 Re: Usenet service (was: RC1 time?)
Previous Message Richard Kuhns 2002-01-10 12:33:09 Re: Does getopt() return "-1", or "EOF", at end?