| From: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe <svn(at)freedomcircle(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Comparative performance |
| Date: | 2005-09-29 05:38:38 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0509290733420.28238-100000@zigo.dhs.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Joe wrote:
> Before I post the EXPLAIN and the table schema I'd appreciate
> confirmation that this list is the appropriate forum.
It is and and useful things to show are
* the slow query
* EXPLAIN ANALYZE of the query
* the output of \d for each table involved in the query
* the output of SHOW ALL;
* The amount of memory the machine have
The settings that are the most important to tune in postgresql.conf for
performance is in my opinion; shared_buffers, effective_cache_size and
(to a lesser extent) work_mem.
--
/Dennis Björklund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Peacetree | 2005-09-29 06:21:10 | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |
| Previous Message | Jeffrey W. Baker | 2005-09-29 04:33:46 | Sequential I/O Cost (was Re: A Better External Sort?) |