Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:08:55 -0800
From: Kenji Morishige <kenjim@juniper.net>
To: Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, kenjim@juniper.net
Subject: Re: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & Adaptec RAID 2200S
Message-ID: <20060318000855.GB14661@juniper.net>
References: <20060317221116.GA14661@juniper.net>
	<b41c75520603171529h20090f12s@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b41c75520603171529h20090f12s@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

Thanks guys, I'm studying each of your responses and am going to start to 
experiement. Unfortunately, I don't have another box with similar specs to
do a perfect experiment with, but I think I'm going to go ahead and open a 
service window to ungrade the box to FBSD6.0 and apply some other changes. It
also gives me the chance to go from 8.0.1 to 8.1 series which I been wanting
to do as well.  Thanks guys and I will see if any of your suggestions make 
a noticable difference.  I also have been looking at log result of slow queries
and making necessary indexes to make those go faster.

-Kenji

On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 12:29:17AM +0100, Claus Guttesen wrote:
> > 4. Are there any other settings in the conf file I could try to tweak?
> 
> One more thing :-)
> 
> I stumbled over this setting, this made the db (PG 7.4.9) make use of
> the index rather than doing a sequential scan and it reduced a query
> from several minutes to some 20 seconds.
> 
> random_page_cost = 2 (original value was 4).
> 
> Another thing you ought to do is to to get the four-five most used
> queries and do an explain analyze in these. Since our website wasn't
> prepared for this type of statistics I simply did a tcpdump, grep'ed
> all select's, sorted them and sorted them unique so I could see which
> queries were used most.
> 
> regards
> Claus