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

Re: Problems with FTS

From: Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Rauan Maemirov <rauan(at)maemirov(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Problems with FTS
Date: 2011-12-01 06:11:40
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 2011-11-30 21:58, Robert Haas wrote:
> The row-count estimates look reasonably accurate, so there's some
> other problem here.  What do you have random_page_cost, seq_page_cost,
> and effective_cache_size set to?  You might try "SET
> random_page_cost=2" or even "SET random_page_cost=0.5; SET
> seq_page_cost=0.3" and see if those settings help
I may be seing ghosts here, since I've encountered
the same problem.  But the Query-planner does not
take toast into account, so a Sequential Scan + filter
only cost what it takes to scan the main table, but fts-fields
are typically large enough to be toasted so the cost should
be main+toast (amount of pages) + filtering cost.

I posted about it yesterday:

If above problem is on <9.1 a patch to proper account of gin-estimates
have been added to 9.1 which also may benefit the planning:

     Improve GIN index scan cost estimation (Teodor Sigaev)


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jeff JanesDate: 2011-12-01 15:06:42
Subject: Re: Guidance Requested - Bulk Inserting + Queries
Previous:From: Benjamin JohnsonDate: 2011-12-01 02:00:56
Subject: Re: Guidance Requested - Bulk Inserting + Queries

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