Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Daniel Åkerud <zilch(at)home(dot)se>, PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact
Date: 2001-06-22 21:52:49
Message-ID: 6007.993246769@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Strange that even at 1024 performance still drops off at 7.  Seems it
> may be more than buffer thrashing.

Yeah, if anything the knee in the curve seems to be worse at 1024
buffers.  Curious.  Deserves more investigation, perhaps.

This does remind me that I'd been thinking of suggesting that we
raise the default -B to something more reasonable, maybe 1000 or so
(yielding an 8-meg-plus shared memory area).  This wouldn't prevent
people from setting it small if they have a small SHMMAX, but it's
probably time to stop letting that case drive our default setting.
Since 64 is already too much to let 7.1 fit in SHMMAX = 1MB, I think
the original rationale for using 64 is looking pretty broken anyway.
Comments?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-06-22 21:56:17
Subject: Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact
Previous:From: Alex PilosovDate: 2001-06-22 21:45:50
Subject: Re: Extracting metadata about attributes from catalog

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-06-22 21:56:17
Subject: Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact
Previous:From: Thalis A. KalfigopoulosDate: 2001-06-22 21:45:17
Subject: no comment

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group