| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kumar, Virendra" <Virendra(dot)Kumar(at)guycarp(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance of a Query |
| Date: | 2018-01-09 22:59:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAOR=d=2kZ5oUx8jQp1S1RsJFEz8kBKz+gUepQJy_N47Muo60Fg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Kumar, Virendra
<Virendra(dot)Kumar(at)guycarp(dot)com> wrote:
> Thank you Scott!
> I have current work_mem set as 4MB, shared_buffers to 8GB, hugepages on.
> I gradually increased the work_mem to 1GB but it did not help a bit. Am I missing something obvious.
> From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 5:08 PM
> To: Kumar, Virendra
> Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: Performance of a Query
Try it with something reasonable like 64MB and then post your query
plans to explain.depesz and then here and let's compare. Note that
some queries are just slow, and this one is handling a lot of data, so
there's only so much to do if an index won't fix it.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kumar, Virendra | 2018-01-09 23:09:13 | RE: Performance of a Query |
| Previous Message | ghiureai | 2018-01-09 22:54:07 | PG 9.5 2 tables same DDL with diff size |