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

Re: GiST index performance

From: Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GiST index performance
Date: 2009-04-16 18:05:23
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm, and what is shared_buffers set to?  How big are the tables and
> other indexes used in the query?  We still have to explain why the
> inner nestloop got slower, and it's hard to see that unless something
> stopped fitting in cache.

I just noticed that someone has started running a big java program (6GB 
RAM so far) on that machine. Maybe it was running during the bad run. I'll 
see if I can re-run those two queries later on when the machine is idle.

shared_buffers = 500MB

Location table: 336 MB
Gene table:     124 MB
Primer table:   103 MB

location__key_all index: 334 MB


 For those of you who are into writing programs that are as obscure and
 complicated as possible, there are opportunities for... real fun here
                                        -- Computer Science Lecturer

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2009-04-16 18:07:38
Subject: Re: need information
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-04-16 17:59:32
Subject: Re: GiST index performance

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