Re: again on index usage
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: again on index usage |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200201101940.g0AJePW08772@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: again on index usage ("Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
This topic seems to come up a lot. Is there something we are missing in the FAQ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote: > > > > > > What is actually estimated wrong here seems to be the estimated > > > > > effective cache size, and thus the cache ratio of page fetches. > > > > > > > > Good point, but I think the estimates are only marginally sensitive > > > > to estimated cache size (if they're not, we have a problem, considering > > > > how poorly we can estimate the kernel's disk buffer size). It would > > > > be interesting for Daniel to try a few different settings of > > > > effective_cache_size and see how much the EXPLAIN costs change. > > > > > > Well, the number I told him (29370) should clearly prefer the index. > > > The estimate is very sensitive to this value :-( > > > With 29370 (=229 Mb) the index cost is 1,364 instead of 3,887 with the > > > default of 1000 pages ==> index scan. > > > > But... if I understand it right (effective_cache_size to be related to kernel > > buffer space). it turns out that the estimates are different with reality - my > > buffer cache is ca. 50 MB and I still get at least twice the performance with > > index scan instead of sequential scan - where as Tom explained things should > > be much worse. > > Since pg only reads one 8k page at a time, the IO performance of a seq scan is > probably not nearly a good as it could be when a lot of other IO is done on the > same drive. > > First thing you should verify is if there is actually a measurable difference > in IO throughput on the pg drive during the seq scan and the index scan. (iostat) > If there is not, then random_page_cost is too high in your scenario. > (All assuming your data is not still clustered like Tom suggested) > > Andreas > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: