From: | "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | postgresql(at)foo(dot)me(dot)uk,"postgres performance list" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |
Date: | 2012-12-04 19:09:20 |
Message-ID: | 20121204190920.142860@gmx.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
postgresql(at)foo(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
> Ah okay, thanks. I knew I could set various things but not
> effective_work_mem (I tried reloading the edited config file but
> it didn't seem to pick it up)
Check the server log, maybe there was a typo or capitalization
error.
To test on a single connection you should be able to just run:
SET effective_cache_size = '88GB';
By the way, one other setting that I have found a need to adjust to
get good plans is cpu_tuple_cost. In my experience, better plans
are chosen when this is in the 0.03 to 0.05 range than with the
default of 0.01.
-Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sergey Konoplev | 2012-12-04 20:11:53 | Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |
Previous Message | postgresql | 2012-12-04 18:56:04 | Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |