Shridhar Daithankar writes:

  First - many thanks for your suggestions and pointers to further info.

  I have been trying some of them with some interesting results!

> Harry Broomhall wrote:
>  > #effective_cache_size = 1000    # typically 8KB each
>  > #random_page_cost = 4       # units are one sequential page fetch cost
> You must tune the first one at least. Try 
> to tune these 
> parameters.

  Changing effective_cache_size seemed to have very little effect.  I took it
in steps up to 300MB (the machine has 640MB memory), and the differences
in speed were less than 10%.

> What happens if you turn off hash joins?

   This makes the non vacuum version about 40% slower, and the vacuum version
to the same speed (i.e. about 4X faster than it had been!).

> Also bump sort memory to something 
> good.. around 16MB and see what difference does it make to performance..

  This was interesting.  Taking it to 10MB made a slight improvement.  Up to
20MB and the vacuum case improved by 5X speed, but the non-vacuum version
slowed down.  Putting it up to 40MB slowed both down again.

  I will need to test with some of the other scripts and functions I have
written, but it looks as if selective use of more sort memory will be


---------------------------(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

Reply via email to