Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:47:27 -0700
From: David Kerr <dmk@mr-paradox.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
Message-ID: <20100420184727.GE53489@mr-paradox.net>
References: <20100420173936.GA50886@mr-paradox.net>
	<h2w603c8f071004201044tbc8ce8fenb846b7643a2b9376@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100420180351.GA51940@mr-paradox.net>
	<s2i603c8f071004201115xae430457q88074af464c8964f@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <s2i603c8f071004201115xae430457q88074af464c8964f@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:15:19PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
- On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:03 PM, David Kerr <dmk@mr-paradox.net> wrote:
- > that thought occured to me while I was testing this. I ran a vacuumdb -z
- > on my database during the load and it didn't impact performance at all.
- 
- The window to run ANALYZE usefully is pretty short.  If you run it
- before the load is complete, your stats will be wrong.  If you run it
- after the select statements that hit the table are planned, the
- updated stats won't arrive in time to do any good.

right, but i'm loading 20 million records in 1000 record increments. so
the analyze should affect all subsequent increments, no?

- > I did turn on log_min_duration_statement but that caused performance to be unbearable,
- > but i could turn it on again if it would help.
- 
- I think you need to find a way to identify exactly which query is
- running slowly.  You could sit there and run "select * from
- pg_stat_activity", or turn on log_min_duration_statement, or have your
- application print out timestamps at key points, or some other
- method...

I'm on it.

Dave