| From: | Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martin French <Martin(dot)French(at)romaxtech(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Out of shared mem on new box with more mem, 9.1.5 -> 9.1.6 |
| Date: | 2012-10-17 09:13:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAOtHd0DhwDqSNDz9kePNPHevqdyCBU7M6=--nGWXa1nJSjTMOA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Martin French
<Martin(dot)French(at)romaxtech(dot)com> wrote:
Thanks for your response.
> What are the settings for:
> work_mem
100MB
> maintenance_work_mem
64MB
> How many concurrent connections are there?
~20
> Have you ran explain analyze on the query that doesn't crash (i.e the old
> box) to get the exact execution plan?
I can try that in the morning, but I didn't think this was relevant. I
know cost estimates can be off, but can the plan actually change
between a vanilla explain and an explain analyze?
> Has the DB been vacuum analyzed?
Not outside of autovacuum, no, but it's actually a former replica of
the first database (sorry I neglected to mention this earlier).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pedro Jiménez Pérez | 2012-10-17 09:14:05 | Re: limit order by performance issue |
| Previous Message | Samuel Gendler | 2012-10-17 09:08:15 | Re: have: seq scan - want: index scan |