| From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Correlation in cost_index() |
| Date: | 2002-10-03 07:28:41 |
| Message-ID: | 6brnpukai7g4fj9sh325svs0i80pitqpke@4ax.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:07:19 -0600 (MDT), "scott.marlowe"
<scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> wrote:
>I'd certainly be willing to do some testing on my own data with them.
Great!
>Gotta patch?
Not yet.
> I've found that when the planner misses, sometimes it misses
>by HUGE amounts on large tables, and I have been running random page cost
>at 1 lately, as well as running cpu_index_cost at 1/10th the default
>setting to get good results.
May I ask for more information? What are your settings for
effective_cache_size and shared_buffers? And which version are you
running?
Servus
Manfred
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Francois Suter | 2002-10-03 07:42:38 | Re: Anyone want to assist with the translation of the Advocacy |
| Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2002-10-03 07:09:49 | Re: Correlation in cost_index() |