Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B669FA21A
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:23:36 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 56571-01-4
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:21:44 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:38.805869 by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from zeus.gigaweb.cz (zeus.gigaweb.cz [81.0.236.19])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5624B9FB2AB
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:21:21 -0400 (AST)
Received: (qmail 16179 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2007 19:14:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.102?) (89.102.195.231)
	by 0 with SMTP; 17 Jan 2007 19:14:44 -0000
Message-ID: <45AE759C.2000402@fuzzy.cz>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:14:36 +0100
From: Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061119)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
References: <1168982580.8275.1169588211@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<26412.1168983547@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1168986053.16393.1169598917@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<81961ff50701161444l3f932755m5a6e15ad2d948130@mail.gmail.com>
	<1169002739.19758.1169636285@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<1169012767.6271.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1169044649.19974.1169715743@webmail.messagingengine.com>
In-Reply-To: <1169044649.19974.1169715743@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200701/271
X-Sequence-Number: 22872

>> Assuming the table's NOT bloated, you may do well to increase the
>> effective_cache_size, which doesn't allocate anything, 
> <snip>
>> try setting it to something like 512MB or so.
> 
> It's currently set to 1000MB.
> 
> 
>> If your table is bloating, and you don't have idle transactions hanging
>> of the database, it could be that your fsm settings are too low.
> 
> fsm is currently set to 2000000.  Is there any harm in setting it too
> high? =)

I generally recomend to use this - it's a nice list of the most
important settings in postgresql.conf (with respect to performance),
along with a short explanation, and suggested values:

   http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList

I'm using it as a general guide when setting and tuning our servers.

Anyway, as someone already pointed out, it's an art to choose the proper
values - there's nothing like 'the only best values'.

tomas