From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: David Kerr <dmk@mr-paradox.net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:22:36 -0600
Message-ID: <q2udcc563d11004201222se02e858fv50b78b96b9d2c015@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100420184727.GE53489@mr-paradox.net>
References: <20100420173936.GA50886@mr-paradox.net>
<h2w603c8f071004201044tbc8ce8fenb846b7643a2b9376@mail.gmail.com>
<20100420180351.GA51940@mr-paradox.net>
<s2i603c8f071004201115xae430457q88074af464c8964f@mail.gmail.com>
<20100420184727.GE53489@mr-paradox.net>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:47 PM, David Kerr <dmk@mr-paradox.net> wrote:
> 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 keep thinking FK checks are taking a long time because they aren't
cached because in import they went through the ring buffer in pg or
some other way aren't in a buffer but large effective cache size says
it's 99.99% chance or better that it's in cache, and chooses a poor
plan to look them up. Just a guess.
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: scott.marlowe@gmail.com, dmk@mr-paradox.net, robertmhaas@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
In-Reply-To: <q2udcc563d11004201222se02e858fv50b78b96b9d2c015@mail.gmail.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