On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 7:46 PM <p...@pfortin.com> wrote: > Memory: 125.5 GiB of RAM > It looks like you have a large amount of memory allocated to the server
But your plans are doing reads instead of pulling things from shared buffers >explain (analyze, buffers) select count(*) from ncvhis_2016_12_03; > Finalize Aggregate (cost=404669.65..404669.66 rows=1 width=8) (actual > time=844.158..847.309 rows=1 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=248 read=25022 > -> Gather (cost=404669.43..404669.65 rows=2 width=8) (actual > time=844.133..847.301 rows=3 loops=1) Workers Planned: 2 > Workers Launched: 2 > Buffers: shared hit=248 read=25022 > -> Partial Aggregate (cost=403669.43..403669.45 rows=1 width=8) > (actual time=838.772..838.772 rows=1 loops=3) Buffers: shared hit=248 > read=25022 -> Parallel Index Only Scan using > ncvhis_2016_12_03_voted_party_cd_idx on ncvhis_2016_12_03 > (cost=0.44..372735.05 rows=12373755 width=0) (actual time=18.277..592.473 > rows=9900389 loops=3) Heap Fetches: 0 Buffers: shared hit=248 read=25022 > Planning Time: 0.069 ms JIT: > Functions: 8 > Options: Inlining false, Optimization false, Expressions true, > Deforming true Timing: Generation 0.284 ms, Inlining 0.000 ms, > Optimization 0.268 ms, Emission 3.590 ms, Total 4.143 ms Execution Time: > 847.498 ms > > data/postgresql.conf: > max_connections = 100 > shared_buffers = 128MB > It looks like you are running with the stock config for shared_buffers. With only 128MB dedicated for shared_buffers and such a big database, you'll be thrashing the cache pretty hard. With 125GB on the server, try upping shared_buffers to something more like 32GB.
