X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 223989DC899 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:51:24 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19724-04 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:51:26 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: delayed 23:22:04.34182 by SQLgrey- Received: from mir3-fs.mir3.com (mail.mir3.com [65.208.188.100]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373699DCA43 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:51:20 -0400 (AST) Received: mir3-fs.mir3.com 172.16.1.11 from 172.16.2.68 172.16.2.68 via HTTP with MS-WebStorage 6.0.6249 Received: from archimedes.mirlogic.com by mir3-fs.mir3.com; 11 Jan 2006 15:50:44 -0800 Subject: Re: Extremely irregular query performance From: Mark Lewis To: Jean-Philippe =?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=F4t=E9?= Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20060111234149.05DEA384099@crt0.crt.umontreal.ca> References: <20060111234149.05DEA384099@crt0.crt.umontreal.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: MIR3, Inc. Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:50:43 -0800 Message-Id: <1137023443.30926.2.camel@archimedes> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-22) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.121 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] X-Spam-Score: 0.121 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/137 X-Sequence-Number: 16615 If this is a query that will be executed more than once, you can also avoid incurring the planning overhead multiple times by using PREPARE. -- Mark Lewis On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 18:50 -0500, Jean-Philippe C=C3=B4t=C3=A9 wrote: > Thanks a lot for this info, I was indeed exceeding the genetic > optimizer's threshold. Now that it is turned off, I get > a very stable response time of 435ms (more or less 5ms) for > the same query. It is about three times slower than the best > I got with the genetic optimizer on, but the overall average > is much lower. >=20 > I'll also try to play with the geqo parameters and see if things > improve. >=20 > Thanks again, >=20 > J-P