Re: Query much faster with enable_seqscan=0
От | Joshua D. Drake |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Query much faster with enable_seqscan=0 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1285096031.15919.68.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Query much faster with enable_seqscan=0 (Ogden <lists@darkstatic.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Query much faster with enable_seqscan=0
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 14:02 -0500, Ogden wrote: > How odd, I set the following: > > seq_page_cost = 1.0 > random_page_cost = 2.0 > > And now the query runs in milliseconds as opposed to 14 seconds. Could this really be the change? I am running ANALYZEnow - how often is it recommended to do this? PostgreSQL's defaults are based on extremely small and some would say (non production) size databases. As a matter of course I always recommend bringing seq_page_cost and random_page_cost more in line. However, you may want to try moving random_page_cost back to 4 and try increasing cpu_tuple_cost instead. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: