At 10.17 27/01/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> Limit (cost=0.00..1003.36 rows=1 width=454) (actual time=806.78..2097.61Thanks again Tom.
> rows=1 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..392651.18 rows=391 width=454) (actual
> time=806.77..2097.59 rows=2 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan Backward using forum_post_id_key on forum_post
> p (cost=0.00..35615.95 rows=60668 width=450) (actual time=0.41..1122.09
> rows=42322 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using forum_topic_id_key on forum_topic
> t (cost=0.00..5.87 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.02..0.02 rows=0 loops=42322)
> Index Cond: ("outer".topicid = t.id)
> Filter: (forumid = 44)
> Total runtime: 2098.14 msec
Hm. So the reason this is slow is it has to go back quite far in the id
index before it finds something from forumid 44. The system is in fact
estimating it as a moderately expensive query --- but not quite
expensive enough. You might try raising RANDOM_PAGE_COST a little to
see if that brings the cost estimates in line with reality.
I'm trying to find out the best values to assign to the RANDOM_PAGE_COST and related vars to have the best performances.
You were right in fact queries where the last data insertion was not so "old" are quick while the "oldest" one using Backwards Indexing were really slow. The problem is that changing these vaules affects also queries where the use of Index in standard way improves a lot the speed, in changing the values sometimes it happens that this kind of queries are made as sequential scan and so they slow down and sometime the overall computation time is higher than the one with no indexes at all.
I'll see what I can do :)
P.S. Is there any place where the configuration vars are explained in a more detailed way than in the offical manual?
Thanks
Luca
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
