| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jared Carr <jared(at)89glass(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: A question on the query planner |
| Date: | 2003-12-03 19:32:50 |
| Message-ID: | 87k75d66jh.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jared Carr <jared(at)89glass(dot)com> writes:
> The patch definitely makes things more consistent...unfortunately it is more
> consistent toward the slower execution times. Of course I am looking at this
> simply from a straight performance standpoint and not a viewpoint of what
> *should* be happening. At any rate here are the query plans with the various
> settings.
The optimizer seems to be at least considering reasonable plans now. It seems
from the estimates that you need to rerun analyze. You might try "vacuum full
analyze" to be sure.
Also, you might try raising effective_cache_size and/or lowering
random_page_size (it looks like something around 2 might help).
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | erik | 2003-12-03 21:22:27 | Re: Update performance ... Recommended configuration changes? |
| Previous Message | Al Hulaton | 2003-12-03 19:31:26 | Re: Minimum hardware requirements for Postgresql db |