Re: Re: Performance degradation in PostgreSQL 7.1beta3 vs
От | Hannu Krosing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: Performance degradation in PostgreSQL 7.1beta3 vs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3A65FC38.3A749B4D@tm.ee обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: Performance degradation in PostgreSQL 7.1beta3 vs (bruc@stone.congenomics.com (Robert E. Bruccoleri)) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Robert E. Bruccoleri" wrote: > > > > > what are the cost estimates when you run explain with seqscan disabled ? > > do => SET ENABLE_SEQSCAN TO OFF; > > see: > > (http://www.postgresql.org/devel-corner/docs/admin/runtime-config.htm#RUNTIME-CONFIG-OPTIMIZER) > > Here's the result from EXPLAIN: > > Aggregate (cost=19966.21..19966.21 rows=1 width=0) > -> Index Scan using comparisons_4_code on comparisons_4 (cost=0.00..19947.73 rows=7391 width=0) > > The estimates are too high. You could try experimenting with SET RANDOM_PAGE_COST TO x.x; from the page above RANDOM_PAGE_COST (floating point) Sets the query optimizer's estimate of the cost of a nonsequentially fetched disk page. this is measured as a multiple of the cost of a sequential page fetch. Note: Unfortunately, there is no well-defined method of determining ideal values for the family of "COST" variables that were just described. You are encouraged to experiment and share your findings. ------------- Hannu
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: