Hi Kevin, thanks for the suggestion. It was my 1st task to try this after Easter. :)
Sorry to say this parameter doesn't help: bad planning: set cpu_tuple_cost = '0.05'; set effective_cache_size to '6GB'; 1622ms http://explain.depesz.com/s/vuO or set cpu_tuple_cost = '0.01'; set effective_cache_size to '6GB'; 1634ms http://explain.depesz.com/s/YqS good planning: set effective_cache_size to '32MB'; set cpu_tuple_cost = '0.05'; 22ms http://explain.depesz.com/s/521 or set effective_cache_size to '32MB'; set cpu_tuple_cost = '0.01'; 12ms http://explain.depesz.com/s/Ypc this was the query: select distinct product_code from product p_ inner join product_parent par_ on p_.parent_id=par_.id where par_.parent_name like 'aa%' limit 2 Any idea? Thanks in advance, Istvan 2012/4/5 Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> > Istvan Endredy <istvan.endr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > i've ran into a planning problem. > > > If effective_cache_size has a greater value (6GB), this select has > > a bad planning and long query time (2000ms): > > Could you try that configuration with one change and let us know how > it goes?: > > set cpu_tuple_cost = '0.05'; > > I've seen an awful lot of queries benefit from a higher value for > that setting, and I'm starting to think a change to that default is > in order. > > -Kevin >
