Re: Forcing using index instead of sequential scan?
От | Mark Kirkwood |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Forcing using index instead of sequential scan? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 44C2ECF0.1040701@paradise.net.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Forcing using index instead of sequential scan? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote: > <robin.c.smith@bt.com> writes: >> I have been testing the performance of PostgreSQL using the simple tool >> found at http://benchw.sourceforge.net however I have found that all the >> queries it run execute with sequential scans. The website where the code >> runs has examples of the execution plan using indexes. > > The reason the website gets indexscans is that he's fooled with the > planner cost parameters. In particular I see that...(snipped) > Indeed I did - probably should have discussed that alteration better in the documentation for the test suite! In addition I was a bit naughty in running the benchmark using size 1 (i.e about 1G) an a box with 2G ram - as this meant that (on the machine I was using then anyway) indexscans on query 0 and 1 were *always* better than the sequential options. A better test is to use the size factor at 2 x physical ram, as then the planners defaults make more sense! (unless or course you *want* to model a data mart smaller than physical ram). Best wishes Mark
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: