| From: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GiST index performance |
| Date: | 2009-04-16 18:05:23 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.00.0904161900500.22330@aragorn.flymine.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm, and what is shared_buffers set to? How big are the tables and
> other indexes used in the query? We still have to explain why the
> inner nestloop got slower, and it's hard to see that unless something
> stopped fitting in cache.
I just noticed that someone has started running a big java program (6GB
RAM so far) on that machine. Maybe it was running during the bad run. I'll
see if I can re-run those two queries later on when the machine is idle.
shared_buffers = 500MB
Location table: 336 MB
Gene table: 124 MB
Primer table: 103 MB
location__key_all index: 334 MB
Matthew
--
For those of you who are into writing programs that are as obscure and
complicated as possible, there are opportunities for... real fun here
-- Computer Science Lecturer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2009-04-16 18:07:38 | Re: need information |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-16 17:59:32 | Re: GiST index performance |