Re: Optimizer bug??
От | Gaetano Mendola |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Optimizer bug?? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | c8vo3q$4qp$1@floppy.pyrenet.fr обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Optimizer bug?? ("Ismail Kizir" <ikizir@tumgazeteler.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Ismail Kizir wrote: > Gaetano, > > I've changed my settings as : > > #fsync = true # turns forced synchronization on or off > #wal_sync_method = fsync # the default varies across platforms: > #effective_cache_size = 1000 # typically 8KB each > random_page_cost = 2 # units are one sequential page fetch cost > cpu_tuple_cost = 0.009 # (same) > cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.0009 # (same) > cpu_operator_cost = 0.0025 # (same) > # fsync, fdatasync, open_sync, or > open_datasync > #wal_buffers = 8 # min 4, 8KB each > > But it still doesn't optimize for that range. > Finally, i've set seq_scan off and, it works now. > But i think, there must be a way to handle those settings automatically for > cpu, ram and hdd settings(is it a sweet dream??) Did you SIGHUP the postmaster after ? You can change these settings also from command line, what you have to do is decrease the cost of the index scan till is less of the sequential scan cost. Good luck. Regards Gaetano Mendola
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: