On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Sergey Koposov <kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk> > wrote: >> On Wed, 30 May 2012, Merlin Moncure wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hm, why aren't we getting a IOS? Just for kicks (assuming this is >>> test data), can we drop the index on just transitid, leaving the index >>> on transitid, healpixid? Is enable_indexonlyscan on? Has idt_match >>> been vacuumed? What kind of plan do you get when do: >> >> >> Okay dropping the index on transitid solved the issue with indexonlyscan but >> didn't solve the original problem. Actually the indexonlyscan made the >> sequential queries faster but not the parallel ones. > > How big is idt_match? What if you drop all indexes on idt_match, > encouraging all the backends to do hash joins against it, which occur > in local memory and so don't have contention?
You just missed his post -- it's only 3G. can you run your 'small' working set against 48gb shared buffers? merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
