Greg Stark wrote:
>Jared Carr <jared@89glass.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>The patch definitely makes things more consistent...unfortunately it is more
>>consistent toward the slower execution times. Of course I am looking at this
>>simply from a straight performance standpoint and not a viewpoint of what
>>*should* be happening. At any rate here are the query plans with the various
>>settings.
>>
>>
>
>The optimizer seems to be at least considering reasonable plans now. It seems
>from the estimates that you need to rerun analyze. You might try "vacuum full
>analyze" to be sure.
>
>Also, you might try raising effective_cache_size and/or lowering
>random_page_size (it looks like something around 2 might help).
>
>
>
Yep, I had forgotten to run vacuum since I had patched it :P. The
overall performance is definitely better,
I will go ahead and tweak the server settings and see what I can get.
Thanks again for all the help.