Re: RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that thakes
От | Stephan Szabo |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that thakes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20040206085014.N88075@megazone.bigpanda.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that thakes 655.07 msec to be runned ? ("Bruno BAGUETTE" <pgsql-ml@baguette.net>) |
Ответы |
RE : RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that thakes 655.07 msec to be runned ?
|
Список | 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@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.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: