X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1160452838 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 06:18:55 -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 16265-01 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:18:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oismail.com (unknown [38.117.22.100]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7229D52834 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 06:18:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.8.103] ([213.173.234.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by oismail.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j599Ihfp013244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Jun 2005 05:18:45 -0400 Message-ID: <42A80A82.3060900@oismail.com> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:23:14 +0200 From: Jona User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christopher Kings-Lynne Cc: Dennis Bjorklund , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Query plan changes after pg_dump / pg_restore References: <42A7F9D9.8000004@oismail.com> <42A7FD12.2080608@familyhealth.com.au> <42A803C8.6070507@oismail.com> <42A803E2.8000706@familyhealth.com.au> In-Reply-To: <42A803E2.8000706@familyhealth.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.104 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/207 X-Sequence-Number: 12844 It's the same (physical) server as well as the same PostGreSQL daemon, so yes. The only difference is the actual database, the test database is made from a backup of the live database and restored onto the same PostGreSQL server. So if I run "show databases" in psql i get: - test - live Makes sense?? /Jona Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > Is effective_cache_size set the same on the test and live? > > Jona wrote: > >> Thanks... have notified our sys admin of that so he can make the >> correct changes. >> >> It still doesn't explain the difference in query plans though? >> >> I mean, it's the same database server the two instances of the same >> database is running on. >> One instance (the live) just insists on doing the seq scan of the 50k >> records in Price_Tbl and the 6.5k records in SCT2SubCatType_Tbl. >> Seems weird.... >> >> Cheers >> Jona >> >> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: >> >>>> Thank you for the swift reply, the following is the output of the >>>> SHOW ALL for shared_buffers and effective_cache_size. >>>> shared_buffers: 13384 >>>> effective_cache_size: 4000 >>>> server memory: 2GB >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> effective_cache_size should be 10-100x larger perhaps... >>> >>> Chris >> >> >> > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster