On 2/7/06, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 07:31:50AM +0100, Nemanja Corlija wrote: > > > Well, that certainly won't help things... at a minimum, on your machine, > > > you should change the following: > > > shared_buffers=10000 > > > effective_cache_size=100000 > > > > > > The following should also help: > > > work_mem=10000 > > > vacuum_cost_delay=50 > > > autovacuum=on > > > autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor=0.2 > > Sure, I could do that. But then I'd also need to tune all other > > databases to make things fair and that's not really what I intended to > > do here. I want to keep things as "out of the box" as possible. > > Then you should just drop PostgreSQL from the tests, because they're not > doing anyone any good. It's pretty well known that the default > postgresql.conf is meant to allow for bringing the database up on a > machine with very minimal hardware. It's the equivalent to using MySQL's > minimum configuration file.
OK, I've changed above settings but now I get even worse performance. 265.223 seconds. File I've edited is C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\8.1\data\postgresql.conf AFAICT that's the one. Then I've restarted postgres. I guess that should load new settings? Then I ran VACUUM ANALYZE t2; Hmmm, now I ran that same script from pgAdmin and it completed in 5 seconds. I guess its reasonable to assume that psql is actually the bottleneck here. I tried redirecting to file but that was a minute ago and it's still running. Any ideas? -- Nemanja Corlija <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
