Re: [PERFORM] Speeding up JSON + TSQUERY + GIN
От | Sven R. Kunze |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PERFORM] Speeding up JSON + TSQUERY + GIN |
Дата | |
Msg-id | b2620eb5-c93d-fc95-7a94-65aa88d20866@mail.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PERFORM] Speeding up JSON + TSQUERY + GIN (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PERFORM] Speeding up JSON + TSQUERY + GIN
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 01.03.2017 18:04, Jeff Janes wrote:
942MB.
But I see where you are coming from. How come that these queries need a Recheck Cond? I gather that this would require reading not only the index data but also the table itself which could be huge, right?
Sven
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Sven R. Kunze <srkunze@mail.de> wrote:On 28.02.2017 17:49, Jeff Janes wrote:Oh. In my hands, it works very well. I get 70 seconds to do the {age: 20} query from pure cold caches, versus 1.4 seconds from cold caches which was followed by pg_prewarm('docs','prefetch').How much RAM do you have? Maybe you don't have enough to hold the table in RAM. What kind of IO system? And what OS?
On my test system:
RAM: 4GB
IO: SSD (random_page_cost = 1.0)
OS: Ubuntu 16.044GB is not much RAM to be trying to pre-warm this amount of data into. Towards the end of the pg_prewarm, it is probably evicting data read in by the earlier part of it.What is shared_buffers?
942MB.
But I see where you are coming from. How come that these queries need a Recheck Cond? I gather that this would require reading not only the index data but also the table itself which could be huge, right?
Sven
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: