cost and actual time
От | Chantal Ackermann |
---|---|
Тема | cost and actual time |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3E4BDE8B.5040908@biomax.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: cost and actual time
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
hello all, I am still fiddling around with my "big" database. System: RAM: 2GB CPU: 1,6 MHz (cache: 256 Kb) single disc: 120 GB :-( I have a query that joins to relatively large tables (10 - 15 Mio rows), or part of these tables (explain analyze: rows=46849) respectively. long story short: allover cost estimated in pages by explain is: cost=6926.59..6926.60 actual time is from explain analyze is: actual time=275461.91..275462.44 most of it is consumed by a nested loop (surprise!) this is the respective output: Sort Key: disease.disease_name, disease_occurrences.sentence_id -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..6922.38 rows=98 width=64) (actual time=61.49..275047.46 rows=18910 loops=1) -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..6333.23 rows=98 width=28) (actual time=61.42..274313.87 rows=18910 loops=1) -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..5894.04 rows=64 width=16) (actual time=32.00..120617.26 rows=46849 loops=1) I tried to tweak the conf settings, but I think I already reached quite a good value concerning shared buffers and sort mem. the database is vacuum full analyzed. indexes seem fine. could one of you smart guys point me into a direction I might not have considered? - I know that the hardware is the minimum. nevertheless - if you have suggestions what exactely to add to the hardware to boost the database up (more RAM or more discs - even a RAID) - this would be a good argument for my boss. Thank you a lot Chantal
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: