From: | Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Caio Casimiro <casimiro(dot)listas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field |
Date: | 2013-11-05 13:17:59 |
Message-ID: | A76B25F2823E954C9E45E32FA49D70EC4283C108@mail.corp.perceptron.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
From: Caio Casimiro [mailto:casimiro(dot)listas(at)gmail(dot)com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 4:33 PM
To: Igor Neyman
Cc: Jeff Janes; pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field
These are the parameters I have set in postgresql.conf:
work_mem = 128MB
shared_buffers = 1GB
maintenance_work_mem = 1536MB
fsync = off
synchronous_commit = off
effective_cache_size = 2GB
The hardware is a modest one:
CPU: Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU 230 @ 1.60GHz
RAM: 2GB
HD: 1TV 7200 RPM (WDC WD10EZEX-00RKKA0)
This machine runs a slackware 14.0 dedicated to the Postgresql.
Thank you,
Caio
With just 2GB RAM, this:
shared_buffers = 1GB
and this:
effective_cache_size = 2GB
is too high.
You should lower those:
shared_buffers = 256MB
effective_cache_size = 1GB
and see how your execution plan changes.
Oh, and this:
maintenance_work_mem = 1536MB
is also too high.
Turning off fsync and synchronous_commit is not very good idea.
Regards,
Igor Neyman
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-11-05 16:10:19 | Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field |
Previous Message | Jan Walter | 2013-11-05 12:25:06 | Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree |