From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Guillaume Cottenceau <gc@mnc.ch>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: planner with index scan cost way off actual cost,
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:57:27 +0000
Message-ID: <1142974647.24487.518.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ek11gz69.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan>
References: <87ek11gz69.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan>
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 11:09 +0100, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> INFO: index "idx_sent_msgs_date_theme_status" now contains 3692284 row versions in 88057 pages
> SET effective_cache_size = 10000;
SET effective_cache_size > 88057, round up to 100000
to ensure the index cost calculation knows the whole index will be
cached, which it clearly could be with 4GB RAM.
If the cost is still wrong, it is because the index order doesn't
correlate physically with the key columns. Use CLUSTER.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: simon@2ndquadrant.com, gc@mnc.ch
Subject: Re: planner with index scan cost way off actual cost,
In-Reply-To: <1142974647.24487.518.camel@localhost.localdomain>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox