On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski <plk.zu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Alex Vinnik <alvinni...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It sure turned out that default settings are not a good fit. > > > do you know pgtune? > it's a good tool for starters, if you want a fast postgres and don't really > want to learn what's behind the scenes. > > random_page_cost=1 might be not what you really want. > it would mean that random reads are as fast as as sequential reads, which > probably is true only for SSD
Or that the "reads" are cached and coming from RAM, which is almost surely the case here. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
