It's the same (physical) server as well as the same PostGreSQL daemon, so yes.

The only difference is the actual database, the test database is made from a backup of the live database and restored onto the same PostGreSQL server.
So if I run "show databases" in psql i get:
- test
- live

Makes sense??


Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

Is effective_cache_size set the same on the test and live?

Jona wrote:

Thanks... have notified our sys admin of that so he can make the correct changes.

It still doesn't explain the difference in query plans though?

I mean, it's the same database server the two instances of the same database is running on. One instance (the live) just insists on doing the seq scan of the 50k records in Price_Tbl and the 6.5k records in SCT2SubCatType_Tbl.
Seems weird....


Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

Thank you for the swift reply, the following is the output of the SHOW ALL for shared_buffers and effective_cache_size.
shared_buffers:  13384
effective_cache_size: 4000
server memory: 2GB

effective_cache_size should be 10-100x larger perhaps...


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

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

Reply via email to