From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joel Fradkin <jfradkin(at)wazagua(dot)com> |
Cc: | gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org, ac(at)wazagua(dot)com, 'Steve Goldsmith' <SGoldsmith(at)fcci-group(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: same question little different test MSSQL vrs Postgres |
Date: | 2005-01-26 17:39:08 |
Message-ID: | 41F7D5BC.7050000@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Joel Fradkin wrote:
> Thank you I will look at that info.
> I did do an EXPLAIN ANALYSE on the view and could see it was doing the seq
> scan on 3 fields, so I did an index for the three fields and it then chose
> an index scan and ran in 27 seconds.
>
> I also did adjust my defaults to much smaller numbers on shared buffers (per
> the tidbits page recommendation like 8 meg for my memory size). I looked at
> http://www.desknow.com/kb/idx/0/061/article/ which recommended doing a
> vacuum verbose to determine the exact max_fsm_pages and I set the cache to
> use 25% of my available memory per the recommendation on tid bits.
Note that the effective_cache_size (if I've spelt it right) just tells
PG what your cache size is. You should set it based on what "free" tells
you about your system's use of memory.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Wilton | 2005-01-26 17:43:24 | Postgresql number of command |
Previous Message | Franco Bruno Borghesi | 2005-01-26 17:12:28 | Re: ***SPAM*** Re: same question little different test MSSQL |