From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: bad planning with 75% effective_cache_size
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:44:42 -0700
Message-ID: <4F8F5FFA.6020800@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEcxehpgASdr9AAxcUNJhG+DqDx0i2VupY_Jj_MVhxDRg8VJcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEcxehpgASdr9AAxcUNJhG+DqDx0i2VupY_Jj_MVhxDRg8VJcA@mail.gmail.com>
On 4/17/12 2:49 AM, Istvan Endredy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for the suggestion, but it didn't help. We have tried it earlier.
>
> 7500ms
> http://explain.depesz.com/s/ctn
This plan seems very odd -- doing individual index lookups on 2.8m rows
is not standard planner behavior. Can you confirm that all of your
other query cost parameters are the defaults?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
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: josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: bad planning with 75% effective_cache_size
In-Reply-To: <4F8F5FFA.6020800@agliodbs.com>
* 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