Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: planner with index scan cost way off actual cost,
- From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
- To: Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch>
- Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: planner with index scan cost way off actual cost,
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:57:27 +0000
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 11:09 +0100, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > INFO: index "idx_sent_msgs_date_theme_status" now contains 3692284 row versions in 88057 pages > SET effective_cache_size = 10000; SET effective_cache_size > 88057, round up to 100000 to ensure the index cost calculation knows the whole index will be cached, which it clearly could be with 4GB RAM. If the cost is still wrong, it is because the index order doesn't correlate physically with the key columns. Use CLUSTER. Best Regards, Simon Riggs
- References:
- planner with index scan cost way off actual cost, advices to tweak cost constants?
- From: Guillaume Cottenceau
- planner with index scan cost way off actual cost, advices to tweak cost constants?
- Prev by Date: Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance
- Next by Date: Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance
- Previous by thread: Re: planner with index scan cost way off actual cost,
- Next by thread: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & Adaptec RAID 2200S
- Indexes: