Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
От | Mark Kirkwood |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D4B235C.1080308@catalyst.net.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... (Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 04/02/11 10:01, Mladen Gogala wrote: > In the meantime, the fire is burning. What should the hapless owner of > the database application do in the meantime? Tell the users that it > will be better in the next version? As I've said before: hints are > make it or break it point. Without hints, I cannot consider Postgres > for the mission critical projects. I am managing big databases for > living and I flatter myself that after more than two decades of doing > it, I am not too bad at it. This is somewhat of a straw man argument. This sort of query that the optimizer does badly usually gets noticed during the test cycle i.e before production, so there is some lead time to get a fix into the code, or add/subtract indexes/redesign the query concerned. The cases I've seen in production typically involve "outgrowing" optimizer parameter settings: (e.g work_mem, effective_cache_size) as the application dataset gets bigger over time. I would note that this is *more* likely to happen with hints, as they lobotomize the optimizer so it *cannot* react to dataset size or distribution changes. regards Mark
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: