Hello All,


Thank you very much for your help. You have really helped me out!

The query is now as fast as the others.



The indexes ix_companyarticledb_article and ix_companyarticledb_company are
removed.

The parameter for default_statistics_target was set to 1000

ANALYZE was performed on the database



I am so happy this worked out.

The pg_buffercache extension is now installed, and I will be working with
it the coming days to improve my settings.

First time I ran the query (evening, not high peak usage)



SELECT c.relname, count(*) AS buffers

             FROM pg_buffercache b INNER JOIN pg_class c

             ON b.relfilenode = pg_relation_filenode(c.oid) AND

                b.reldatabase IN (0, (SELECT oid FROM pg_database

                                      WHERE datname = current_database()))

             GROUP BY c.relname

             ORDER BY 2 DESC

             LIMIT 10;



"pk_pricedb"    "1479655"

"companyarticledb"      "1378549"

"articledb"         "780821"

"pricedb"           "280771"

"descriptionindex"        "138514"

"ix_pricedb"      "122833"

"pk_articledb"  "47290"

"EnabledIndex" "29958"

"strippedmanufacturernumberindex"   "25604"

"strippedcataloguenumberindex"          "24360"





How can I see if the whole DB is kept in RAM?

How to define the best setting for work_mem ?



Thanks for your help!



Regards,

Kim















Op di 26 feb. 2019 om 20:08 schreef Michael Lewis <mle...@entrata.com>:

>
> Indexes:
>>     "pk_pricedb" PRIMARY KEY, btree (companyid, articleid)
>>     "EnabledIndex" btree (enabled)
>>     "ix_companyarticledb_article" btree (articleid)
>>     "ix_companyarticledb_company" btree (companyid)
>>
>
> I'd say drop ix_companyarticledb_company since pk_pricedb can be used
> instead even if other queries are only on companyid field, and it will be
> faster for this case certainly since it targets the row you want directly
> from the index without the *"Rows Removed by Filter: 2674361"*
>
> I doubt the default_statistics_target = 100 default is doing you any
> favors. You may want to try increasing that to 500 or 1000 if you can
> afford a small increase in planning cost and more storage for the bigger
> sampling of stats.
>


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,

Reply via email to