From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruno BAGUETTE <pgsql-ml(at)baguette(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that thakes |
Date: | 2004-02-06 17:13:42 |
Message-ID: | 20040206085014.N88075@megazone.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Bruno BAGUETTE wrote:
> > In addition to what Tom said, the row estimates look
> > suspiciously default. You mention vacuuming, but do you ever
> > analyze the tables?
>
> I run VACUUM FULL ANALYZE with the postgres user on all the PostgreSQL
> databases on the server, twice a day, sometimes more.
Wierd, because you're getting 1000 estimated on both people and
organizations. What does pg_class have to say about those two tables?
> > Also, what do you have sort_mem set to?
>
> [root(at)levure data]# cat postgresql.conf | grep sort_mem
> sort_mem = 6144 # min 64, size in KB
>
> Do you think I should increase that value ?
Hmm, I'd expect that the sort would fit in that space in general. If you
want to try different values, you can set sort_mem from psql rather than
changing the configuration file.
----
On my machine the index does actually help, although I needed to lower
random_page_cost a little from its default of 4 to get it to use it
preferentially, but I'm also getting times about 1/3 of yours (and my
machine is pretty poor) so I think I may not have data that matches yours
very well.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Octavio Alvarez | 2004-02-06 17:24:52 | Re: [PERFORM] Seq scan on zero-parameters function |
Previous Message | markw | 2004-02-06 17:05:04 | Re: 7.3 vs 7.4 performance |