On 2011-08-11, at 17:18 , k...@rice.edu wrote: > One guess is that you are using the defaults for other costing parameters and > they > do not accurately reflect your system. This means that it will be a crap > shoot as > to whether a plan is faster or slower and what will affect the timing.
Ok, but I thought the way to best optimise PostgreSQL is to start with the parameters having the biggest impact and work from there. To adjust multiple parameters would not give a clear indication as to the benefit of each, as they may cancel each other out. To test your theory, what other parameters should I be looking at? Here are some more with their current values: random_page_cost = 4.0 effective_cache_size = 128MB Remember this runs on SATA so random seeks are not as fast as say SSD. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
