Re: Simple join doesn't use index
| От | Filip Rembiałkowski |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Simple join doesn't use index |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAP_rwwmwjZh+UX2cFztR3wKeEQqnXW=kNx_XhrN2E76K5bxduA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Simple join doesn't use index (Alex Vinnik <alvinnik.g@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Simple join doesn't use index
|
| Список | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Alex Vinnik <alvinnik.g@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, I'm sure it will not do anything bad to your config.
I'd say: don't guess. Measure.
Use any tool that can test sequential disk block reads versus random disk block reads.
bonnie++ is quite popular.
Filip
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski <plk.zuber@gmail.com> wrote:Yeah.. I came across pgtune but noticed that latest version dated 2009-10-29 http://pgfoundry.org/frs/?group_id=1000416 which is kind of outdated. Tar file has settings for pg 8.3. Is still relevant?do you know pgtune?
it's a good tool for starters, if you want a fast postgres and don't really want to learn what's behind the scenes.
Yes, I'm sure it will not do anything bad to your config.
random_page_cost=1 might be not what you really want.
it would mean that random reads are as fast as as sequential reads, which probably is true only for SSDWhat randon_page_cost would be more appropriate for EC2 EBS Provisioned volume that can handle 2,000 IOPS?
I'd say: don't guess. Measure.
Use any tool that can test sequential disk block reads versus random disk block reads.
bonnie++ is quite popular.
Filip
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: