X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A942DAAE6 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:24:45 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08846-01 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:24:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mx1.surnet.cl (mx1.surnet.cl [216.155.73.180]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B33DAABF for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:24:42 -0300 (ADT) Received: from unknown (HELO cluster.surnet.cl) ([216.155.73.165]) by mx1.surnet.cl with ESMTP; 22 Oct 2005 10:26:48 -0300 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,240,1125892800"; d="scan'208"; a="19080171:sNHT17954832" Received: from alvh.no-ip.org (200.85.219.78) by cluster.surnet.cl (7.0.043) (authenticated as alvherre@surnet.cl) id 43501597000FBECD; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:24:47 -0300 Received: by alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3C7D7C2D469; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:25:12 -0300 (CLST) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:25:12 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Martin Nickel Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Sequential scan on FK join Message-ID: <20051022132512.GE18064@surnet.cl> Mail-Followup-To: Martin Nickel , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <4353648C.8040507@archonet.com> <4353E342.2060708@archonet.com> <4354A9AF.30300@archonet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.042 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.734, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.374, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.376, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.026] X-Spam-Level: ** X-Archive-Number: 200510/304 X-Sequence-Number: 15072 Martin Nickel wrote: > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:52:15 +0100, Richard Huxton wrote: > > 3. Actually - are you happy that your general configuration is OK? > We're running dual Opteron 244s with 4G of memory. The platform is > Suse 9.3, 64 bit. The database is on a 3ware 9500S-8 sata raid controller > configured raid 10 with 4 drives plus a hot swap. Drives are > 7400 rpm (don't remember model or size). > > I'm running Postgres 8.0.3. Here are some of the relevant conf file > parameters: > shared_buffers = 50000 > sort_mem = 8192 > work_mem = 256000 Interesting that you set both sort_mem and work_mem. Do you realize that the former is an obsolete name, and currently a synonym for the latter? Maybe the problem is that you are using too much memory for sorts, forcing swap usage, etc. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/DXLWNGRJD34J "La persona que no quería pecar / estaba obligada a sentarse en duras y empinadas sillas / desprovistas, por cierto de blandos atenuantes" (Patricio Vogel)