Re: planner with index scan cost way off actual cost,

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: planner with index scan cost way off actual cost,
Date: 2006-03-21 11:51:00
Message-ID: 20060321115100.GM15742@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 10:40:45PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> I was going to recommend higher - but not knowing what else was running,
> kept it to quite conservative :-)... and given he's running java, the
> JVM could easily eat 512M all by itself!

Oh, didn't pick up on java being in the mix. Yeah, it can be a real pig.
I think people often place too much emphasis on having a seperate
application server, but in the case of java you often have no choice.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Csaba Nagy 2006-03-21 11:52:46 Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-03-21 11:49:37 Re: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB &