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

Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Brendan Duddridge <brendan(at)clickspace(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan
Date: 2006-03-30 05:18:49
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance

> Any ideas what I can do to improve this without turning sequential  
> scanning off?

Hmmm, looks like your row estimates are good.  Which means it's probably your 
postgresql.conf parameters which are off.  Try the following, in the order 

1) Raise effective_cache_size to 2/3 of your RAM (remember that ecs is in 8k 
pages).  Test again.

2) Multiply all of the cpu_* costs by 0.3.  Test again.

3) Lower random_page_cost by steps to 3.5, then 3.0, then 2.5, then 2.0, 
testing each time.

These are all runtime-settable parameters, so you can test them in one query 
window, then set them in the main postgresql.conf if they work.

Josh Berkus
Sun Microsystems
San Francisco

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Greg QuinnDate: 2006-03-30 05:57:23
Subject: [Solved] Slow performance on Windows .NET and OleDb
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2006-03-30 05:14:27
Subject: Re: Database possible corruption , unsolvable mystery

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group