Hmmm...
I may be mistaken (I think last time I read about optimization params was in
7.3 docs), but doesn't RPC < 1 mean that random read is faster than
sequential read? In your case, do you really think reading randomly is 4x
faster than reading sequentially? Doesn't seem to make sense, even with a
zillion-disk array. Theoretically.
Also not sure, but sort_mem and vacuum_mem seem to be too small to me.
G.
%----------------------- cut here -----------------------%
\end
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Montgomery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 5:45 PM
> Some relevant parameters:
> shared_buffers = 16384
> sort_mem = 2048
> vacuum_mem = 16384
> max_fsm_pages = 200000
> max_fsm_relations = 10000
> fsync = true
> wal_sync_method = fsync
> wal_buffers = 32
> checkpoint_segments = 6
> effective_cache_size = 262144
> random_page_cost = 0.25
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
