Re: Unexpected Performance for the Function simplify_function

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ba Jinsheng <bajinsheng(at)u(dot)nus(dot)edu>
Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unexpected Performance for the Function simplify_function
Date: 2024-10-25 10:20:04
Message-ID: CAApHDvpi1eCWyMmt-XBP16ivuQJGfVkBu6eBGEwOzk4YQAR__Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 22:26, Ba Jinsheng <bajinsheng(at)u(dot)nus(dot)edu> wrote:
> I guess the better query plan is not considered when comparing the cost of paths?

You might want to change effective_cache_size is set high enough.
Something like 50-75% of RAM is likely fine.

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message SAMEER KUMAR 2024-10-25 12:09:45 Re: lwlock:LockManager wait_events
Previous Message Andrei Lepikhov 2024-10-25 09:38:24 Re: Unexpected Performance for the Function simplify_function