| From: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
|---|---|
| To: | |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan |
| Date: | 2007-01-17 19:14:36 |
| Message-ID: | 45AE759C.2000402@fuzzy.cz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>> Assuming the table's NOT bloated, you may do well to increase the
>> effective_cache_size, which doesn't allocate anything,
> <snip>
>> try setting it to something like 512MB or so.
>
> It's currently set to 1000MB.
>
>
>> If your table is bloating, and you don't have idle transactions hanging
>> of the database, it could be that your fsm settings are too low.
>
> fsm is currently set to 2000000. Is there any harm in setting it too
> high? =)
I generally recomend to use this - it's a nice list of the most
important settings in postgresql.conf (with respect to performance),
along with a short explanation, and suggested values:
http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList
I'm using it as a general guide when setting and tuning our servers.
Anyway, as someone already pointed out, it's an art to choose the proper
values - there's nothing like 'the only best values'.
tomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2007-01-17 19:32:37 | Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Haile | 2007-01-17 18:55:07 | Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan |