Re: Very big insert/join performance problem (bacula)

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Marc Cousin" <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Very big insert/join performance problem (bacula)
Date: 2009-07-16 20:07:25
Message-ID: 4A5F422D0200002500028865@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> the hot parts of these 2 tables are extremely likely to be in the
> database or linux cache (buffer hit rate was 97% in the example
> provided). Moreover, the first two queries of the insert procedure
> fill the cache for us...

This would be why the optimizer does the best job estimating the
relative costs of various plans when you set the random_page_cost and
seq_page_cost very low.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2009-07-16 20:14:43 Re: cluster index on a table
Previous Message Scott Carey 2009-07-16 20:06:10 Re: cluster index on a table