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 D1CDD9DD559 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:51:00 -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 49664-09 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:51:03 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05F99DD539 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:50:58 -0400 (AST) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 3F11456437; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:51:02 -0600 (CST) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:51:00 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:51:00 -0600 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Mark Kirkwood Cc: Guillaume Cottenceau , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: planner with index scan cost way off actual cost, Message-ID: <20060321115100.GM15742@pervasive.com> References: <87ek11gz69.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan> <441CDAAA.20609@paradise.net.nz> <87d5ghms3h.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan> <20060321095049.GW15742@pervasive.com> <441FD82D.1040509@paradise.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <441FD82D.1040509@paradise.net.nz> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE-p4 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Hashcash: 1:20:060321:markir@paradise.net.nz::7M3/UAurfC0X3y38:000000000000000 0000000000000000000000002hmR X-Hashcash: 1:20:060321:gc@mnc.ch::S9RL2kSjbrtSKuIB:00000000Bvsa X-Hashcash: 1:20:060321:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::iCmzYCLuLi9kby+d:00000 0000000000000000000000002ZpP X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.108 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108] X-Spam-Score: 0.108 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/385 X-Sequence-Number: 17822 On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 10:40:45PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > I was going to recommend higher - but not knowing what else was running, > kept it to quite conservative :-)... and given he's running java, the > JVM could easily eat 512M all by itself! Oh, didn't pick up on java being in the mix. Yeah, it can be a real pig. I think people often place too much emphasis on having a seperate application server, but in the case of java you often have no choice. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461