Re: again on index usage
От | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD |
---|---|
Тема | Re: again on index usage |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA41EB49D@m0114.s-mxs.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | again on index usage (Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg>) |
Ответы |
Re: again on index usage
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> [with the new effective_cache_size = 6400] This seems way too low for a 512 Mb machine. Why does your OS only use so little for filecache ? Is the rest used for processes ? For the above number you need to consider OS cache and shared_buffers. You can approximatly add them together minus a few %. With the data you gave, a calculated value for effective_cache_size would be 29370, assuming the random_page_cost is actually 4 on your machine. 29370 might be a slight overestimate, since your new table will probably still be somewhat sorted by date within one IP. Try to measure IO/s during the seq scan and during the index path and calculate the ratio. This should be done during an average workload on the machine. Andreas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: