Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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