From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Filip Rembiałkowski <plk(dot)zuber(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alex Vinnik <alvinnik(dot)g(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Simple join doesn't use index |
Date: | 2013-01-29 23:15:36 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1xbT053iQOegRj2oEyOUhhQw5XrY7fCwDf2CtXT=U0ThQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski
<plk(dot)zuber(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Alex Vinnik <alvinnik(dot)g(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> It sure turned out that default settings are not a good fit.
>
>
> do you know pgtune?
> it's a good tool for starters, if you want a fast postgres and don't really
> want to learn what's behind the scenes.
>
> random_page_cost=1 might be not what you really want.
> it would mean that random reads are as fast as as sequential reads, which
> probably is true only for SSD
Or that the "reads" are cached and coming from RAM, which is almost
surely the case here.
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Casey Allen Shobe | 2013-02-01 17:11:53 | Fighting the planner >:-( |
Previous Message | Alex Vinnik | 2013-01-29 20:48:50 | Re: Simple join doesn't use index |