Re: FTS performance issue - planner problem identified (but only partially resolved)

From: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
To: Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FTS performance issue - planner problem identified (but only partially resolved)
Date: 2013-07-29 20:28:56
Message-ID: 1375129736.38828.YahooMailNeo@web162901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Finally, setting random_page_cost to 1 helps also - but I don't
> like this setting neither.

Well, you should learn to like whichever settings best model your
actual costs given your level of caching and your workload.  ;-)
FWIW, I have found page costs less volatile and easier to tune
with cpu_tuple_cost increased.  I just always start by bumping
that to 0.03.

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stefan Keller 2013-07-29 23:29:46 Re: FTS performance issue - planner problem identified (but only partially resolved)
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2013-07-25 17:32:24 Re: How is memory allocated/used by Postgresql Database connections