From: | "Van Der Berg, Stefan" <SvanderBerg(at)fnb(dot)co(dot)za> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Strange performance problem with query |
Date: | 2014-09-16 06:51:07 |
Message-ID: | 5417DDDB.4000600@fnb.co.za |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for the advice.
I opted for setting the random_page_cost a bit lower, as that made the
most sense in the context of the current setup where there is quite a
high cache hit ratio. Is 97% high enough?:
=# SELECT
'cache hit rate' AS name,
sum(heap_blks_hit) / (sum(heap_blks_hit) + sum(heap_blks_read)) AS
ratio
FROM pg_statio_user_tables;
name | ratio
----------------+------------------------
cache hit rate | 0.97344836172381212996
When I set the random_page_cost down from 4 to 2, the query plan changes
to the faster one.
Kind Regards
Stefan
Cell : 072-380-1479
Desk : 087-577-7241
On 2014/09/15 03:25 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> "Van Der Berg, Stefan" <SvanderBerg(at)fnb(dot)co(dot)za> wrote:
>
>> I get a similar plan selected on the original query if I set
>> enable_seqscan to off. I much prefer the second result.
>> My questions are:
>> 1. Why is this happening?
> Your cost factors don't accurately model actual costs.
>
>> 2. How can I encourage the behavior of the second query without
>> changing the original query?
> You didn't give enough information to really give solid advice, but
> when people see what you are seeing, some common tuning needed is:
>
> Set shared_buffers to about 25% of system RAM or 8GB, whichever is
> lower.
>
> Set effective_cache_size to 50% to 75% of system RAM.
>
> Set work_mem to about 25% of system RAM divided by max_connections.
>
> If you have a high cache hit ratio (which you apparently do) reduce
> random_page_cost, possibly to something near or equal to
> seq_page_cost.
>
> Increase cpu_tuple_cost, perhaps to 0.03.
>
> You might want to play with the above, and if you still have a
> problem, read this page and post with more detail:
>
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SlowQueryQuestions
>
>> Is there some column level setting I can set?
> The statistics looked pretty accurate, so that shouldn't be
> necessary.
>
> --
> Kevin Grittner
> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
To read FirstRand Bank's Disclaimer for this email click on the following address or copy into your Internet browser:
https://www.fnb.co.za/disclaimer.html
If you are unable to access the Disclaimer, send a blank e-mail to
firstrandbankdisclaimer(at)fnb(dot)co(dot)za and we will send you a copy of the Disclaimer.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Huang, Suya | 2014-09-17 00:21:58 | How to interpret view pg_stat_bgwriter |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-09-15 13:25:44 | Re: Strange performance problem with query |