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
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? |