From: Tobias Brox <tobias@nordicbet.com>
To: nospam@hardgeus.com
Cc: Paul Lathrop <plathrop@squaretrade.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Defining performance.
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 02:15:54 +0100
Message-ID: <20061201011554.GA27123@oppetid.no> (raw)
[nospam@hardgeus.com - Thu at 06:37:12PM -0600]
> As my dataset has gotten larger I have had to throw more metal at the
> problem, but I have also had to rethink my table and query design. Just
> because your data set grows linearly does NOT mean that the performance of
> your query is guaranteed to grow linearly! A sloppy query that runs OK
> with 3000 rows in your table may choke horribly when you hit 50000.
Then some limit is hit ... either the memory cache, or that the planner
is doing an unlucky change of strategy when hitting 50000.
Anyway, it's very important when testing queries that they actually are
tested on a (copy of the) production database, and not on an empty
database or a database containing some random test data. If testing
queries off the production database, it's important to have equal
hardware and configuration on both servers.
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: tobias@nordicbet.com, nospam@hardgeus.com, plathrop@squaretrade.com
Subject: Re: Defining performance.
In-Reply-To: <20061201011554.GA27123@oppetid.no>
* 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