On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:35:31 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I suspect that fooling with shared_buffers is entirely the wrong tree
> for you to be barking up. My suggestion is to be looking at individual
> queries that are slow, and seeing how to speed those up. This might
> involve adding indexes, or tweaking the query source, or adjusting
> planner parameters, or several other things. EXPLAIN ANALYZE is your
> friend ...
> regards, tom lane
Only problem is, a "select count(1)" is taking a long time. Indexes
shouldn't matter with this since it's counting every row, right? The
tables are fairly well indexed also, I could probably add a few more.
If shared_buffers isn't the way to go ( you said 10k is the sweetspot
), then what about the effective_cache_size? I was suggested on the
general list about possibly setting that to 75% of ram.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Josh Close||Date: 2004-10-20 13:39:53|
|Subject: Re: how much mem to give postgres?|
|Previous:||From: Matt Clark||Date: 2004-10-20 13:23:21|
|Subject: Re: OS desicion|