Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F37163311F for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:23:52 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60982-04 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:23:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.27]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC8E634C4E for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:23:34 -0400 (AST) Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 9so1166688qwb.61 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:23:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kpZYGCfGNid2J0h6d+WDVOQY5v7Y3kaxO7n2X4d9Hl4=; b=qkLEwiutZ/4p+kGlTo6IkFVKaTLL2rPE5BmE77XJDMj3FvgJ6NvYaDJ7WQqydJrrzf g4CMLYmA/ttu+yozDjZDzhMSDEcndayHHmo/uGovDRZNtlWobg9Y8roQE6LJK+H0lLO6 aeAymJNPNnSICqRCIgM2BEfloxwBWIiCop3vo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=vZYk0J6A8dKXkozKPuaELfZ4Qg2I9yv+SViiIrR5f0jeHAgEiN7BRRm/nMgz1uMGct vjLf4Ux3rOzR/32Tzz2IZdIYWpmg/3YnTcDFAvQaPou23+nj01x8XnmaG1qvir73Xw4N LEGz39HPcLsiBL0/UgfvsoWUGn8SRnnUO7WK8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.239.169.18 with SMTP id m18mr20374hbe.200.1257269013247; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:23:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4AEFF447020000250002C19D@gw.wicourts.gov> References: <4AEFF447020000250002C19D@gw.wicourts.gov> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:23:33 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Problem with database performance, Debian 4gb ram ? From: Jeff Janes To: Kevin Grittner Cc: Grant Masan , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.599 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200911/23 X-Sequence-Number: 36191 On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Grant Masan wrote: > > >> cpu_tuple_cost = 0.0030 >> cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.0010 >> cpu_operator_cost = 0.0005 > > Why did you make these adjustments? I usually have to change the > ratio between page and cpu costs toward the other direction. Is that because the database is mostly cached in memory? If I take the documented descriptions of the costs parameters at face value, I find that cpu_tuple_cost should be even lower yet. Cheer, Jeff