Re: PG 7.0 is 2.5 times slower running a big report
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PG 7.0 is 2.5 times slower running a big report |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 23372.959273376@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PG 7.0 is 2.5 times slower running a big report ("Bryan White" <bryan@arcamax.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PG 7.0 is 2.5 times slower running a big report
|
Список | pgsql-general |
"Bryan White" <bryan@arcamax.com> writes: > I have recoverd the performance lost when I moved to Postgres 7.0 by > executing SET enable_indexscan = OFF before creating my cursors and > turning it back on for the inner loop query. It may even be faster > then before so I am happy. OK, so it was the indexscans that were hurting. (7.0 has new sorting code too, so I was a little afraid that the problem might be with the sorts. Evidently not.) This suggests that at least on your setup, the default value of 4.0 for random_page_cost might still be too low. I have not tried to measure that number on a Linux machine, just on machines with BSD-derived filesystems. Maybe Linux does a lot worse with random accesses than BSD? Needs looking into. > It seems that with index scans the cursors start producing data right away > (but the overall rate is slower). With sequential scan and sort the report > gets no data for the first 30 minutes and then runs at about 4 times the > rate of the index scan. Right, that's what you'd expect: the sort has to be completed before it knows which row to deliver first, but an indexscan has no such startup cost. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: