Hi,
On 2019-11-24 15:50:20 -0500, Jeff Janes wrote:
> OK, but do you agree that a 15% slow down is more realistic than 3 fold
> one? Or are you still getting 3 fold slow down with more careful testing
> and over a wide variety of queries?
>
> I find that the main regression (about 15%) in your e
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:46 AM Sachin Divekar wrote:
> I am also going to use SKIP LOCKED to _select for update_. Any suggestions
> on tuning parameters for SKIP LOCKED?
>
I am not aware of any. Either you use it because it fits your need, or not.
Note- please don't top-post (reply and include
Thank you, Michaels.
.
I didn't know about fillfactor and table bloat. Did some reading on those
topics. We will definitely need to tweak these settings.
I am also going to use SKIP LOCKED to _select for update_. Any suggestions
on tuning parameters for SKIP LOCKED?
Thanks
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at
Yep, I concur completely! For tables treated like queues you gotta do
this stuff or deal with bloat and fragmented indexes.
Michael Lewis wrote on 12/3/2019 12:29 PM:
"I am going to use it as a queue"
You may want to look at lowering fillfactor if this queue is going to
have frequent updates
"I am going to use it as a queue"
You may want to look at lowering fillfactor if this queue is going to have
frequent updates, and also make autovacuum/analyze much more aggressive
assuming many updates and deletes.
Thanks for the answer!
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 8:39 AM Jeff Janes wrote:
> What happens if you set enable_sort to off before running it?
Turning enable_sort to off makes the first query to not sort[1]. It
does run much slower though compared to the original query[2]. This
time I do VACUUM ANALYZE
