Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE

From: Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Mark Pritchard <mark(at)tangent(dot)net(dot)au>, Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro <lamigo(at)atc(dot)unican(dot)es>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
Date: 2002-04-18 16:10:37
Message-ID: 3CBEEFFD.2070905@wgops.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Numbers being run on a BSD box now...

FreeBSD 4.3-p27 512MB RAM 2xPiii600 Xeon ona 4 disk RAID 5 ARRAY on a
dedicated ICP Vortex card. Sorry no single drives on this box, I have
an outboard Silicon Gear Mercury on a motherboard based Adaptec
controller I can test as well. I'll post when the tests on the Vortex
are done. I'm using 2Gb files ATM, I'll look at the code and see if it
can be made to work with large files. Atleast for FreeBSD the change
will be mostly taking doing s/fseek/fseeko/g s/size_t/off_t/g or
something similar. FreeBSD seems ot prefer teh Open Unix standard in
this regard...

This will make it usable for much larger test files.

Tom Lane wrote:

>Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com> writes:
>
>>Somethings wrong with the random numbers from the sun... re-run them,
>>that first sample is insane.... Caching looks like it's affecctign your
>>results alot...
>>
>
>Yeah; it looks like the test case is not large enough to swamp out
>caching effects on the Sun box. It is on the Linux box, evidently,
>since the 10:1 ratio appears very repeatable.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Browne 2002-04-18 16:11:13 Re: new food for the contrib/ directory
Previous Message Dav Coleman 2002-04-18 16:07:09 Re: [SQL] SQL Query Optimization