Message-ID: <41F7D5BC.7050000@archonet.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:39:08 +0000
From: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joel Fradkin <jfradkin@wazagua.com>
Cc: gsstark@mit.edu, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, ac@wazagua.com,
	'Steve Goldsmith' <SGoldsmith@fcci-group.com>
Subject: Re: same question little different test MSSQL vrs Postgres
References: <000001c503c9$0d2e38d0$797ba8c0@jfradkin>
In-Reply-To: <000001c503c9$0d2e38d0$797ba8c0@jfradkin>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joel Fradkin wrote:
> Thank you I will look at that info.
> I did do an EXPLAIN ANALYSE on the view and could see it was doing the seq
> scan on 3 fields, so I did an index for the three fields and it then chose
> an index scan and ran in 27 seconds.
> 
> I also did adjust my defaults to much smaller numbers on shared buffers (per
> the tidbits page recommendation like 8 meg for my memory size). I looked at
> http://www.desknow.com/kb/idx/0/061/article/ which recommended doing a
> vacuum verbose to determine the exact max_fsm_pages and I set the cache to
> use 25% of my available memory per the recommendation on tid bits.

Note that the effective_cache_size (if I've spelt it right) just tells 
PG what your cache size is. You should set it based on what "free" tells 
you about your system's use of memory.

-- 
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd