On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Claudio Freire
>> wrote:
>>> As far as I can see on the explain, the misestimation is 3x~4x not 200x.
>>
>> It is 3x (14085 vs 4588) for selectivity on o
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> I'm not sure that this change would fix your problem, because it might
>>> also change the costs of the alternative plans in a way th
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> I'm not sure that this change would fix your problem, because it might
>> also change the costs of the alternative plans in a way that
>> neutralizes things. But I suspect it would fix it
Hi Jeff
> It kind of does. The expected speed is predicated on the number of rows
being 200 fold higher. If the number of rows actually was that much higher,
the two speeds might be closer together. That is why it would be
interesting to see a more typical case where the actual number of rows i
> I also wonder if increasing (say x10) of default_statistics_target or just
doing ALTER TABLE SET STATISTICS for particular tables will help.
> It will make planned to produce more precise estimations. Do not forget
ANALYZE afer changing it.
Thanks Sergey, I will try this too.
I think the bother
On 12/06/2012 12:37 PM, John Lister wrote:
On 06/12/2012 09:33, Andrea Suisani wrote:
which kind of ssd disks do you have ?
maybe they are of the same typeShaun Thomas is having problem with here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-12/msg00030.php
Yeah i saw that post, I'm r
That is very interesting indeed, these indexes are quite large!
I will apply that patch and try it out this evening and let you know.
Thank you very much everyone for your time, the support has been amazing.
PS: Just looked at this thread on the archives page and realised I don't
have my name in
On 06/12/2012 09:33, Andrea Suisani wrote:
which kind of ssd disks do you have ?
maybe they are of the same typeShaun Thomas is having problem with here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-12/msg00030.php
Yeah i saw that post, I'm running the same version of ubuntu with the
3
[added performance list back]
On 12/06/2012 10:04 AM, John Lister wrote:
Thanks for the info, I'll have a play and see what values I get with similar
settings, etc
you're welcome
Still think something is wrong with my config, but we'll see.
which kind of ssd disks do you have ?
maybe they
Hi John,
On 12/06/2012 09:29 AM, John Lister wrote:
on this box:
in a brief: the box is dell a PowerEdge r720 with 16GB of RAM,
the cpu is a Xeon 5620 with 6 core, the OS is installed on a raid
(sata disk 7.2k rpm) and the PGDATA is on separate RAID 1 array
(sas 15K rpm) and the controller i
On 05/12/2012 18:28, Shaun Thomas wrote:
Hey guys,
This isn't a question, but a kind of summary over a ton of investigation
I've been doing since a recent "upgrade". Anyone else out there with
"big iron" might want to confirm this, but it seems pretty reproducible.
This seems to affect the lates
on this box:
in a brief: the box is dell a PowerEdge r720 with 16GB of RAM,
the cpu is a Xeon 5620 with 6 core, the OS is installed on a raid
(sata disk 7.2k rpm) and the PGDATA is on separate RAID 1 array
(sas 15K rpm) and the controller is a PERC H710 (bbwc with a cache
of 512 MB). (ubuntu 1
12 matches
Mail list logo
