Re: multicolumn index and setting effective_cache_size using human-readable-numbers

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: multicolumn index and setting effective_cache_size using human-readable-numbers
Date: 2016-02-29 18:31:29
Message-ID: 56D48E81.4070801@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 02/29/2016 10:05 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> Just as a continuation of this, I can set effective_cache_size to 64MB
> and it will still use the single-column index, but PG flatly refuses
> to use the multicolumn index without effective_cache_size being an
> unfeasibly large number (2x the RAM in the machine, in this case).

I haven't been following this thread but did you try looking at the costs?

#seq_page_cost = 1.0 # measured on an arbitrary scale
#random_page_cost = 4.0 # same scale as above
#cpu_tuple_cost = 0.01 # same scale as above
#cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.005 # same scale as above
#cpu_operator_cost = 0.0025 # same scale as above
#effective_cache_size = 128MB

Especially seq_page_cost, random_page_cost and cpu_index_tuple_cost?

JD

>
> Geoff
>
>

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2016-02-29 18:35:20 Re: Only owners can ANALYZE tables...seems overly restrictive
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2016-02-29 18:08:38 Re: Only owners can ANALYZE tables...seems overly restrictive