On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski plk.zu...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Alex Vinnik alvinni...@gmail.com wrote:
It sure turned out that default settings are not a good fit.
do you know pgtune?
it's a good tool for starters, if you want a fast
Setting work_mem to 64MB triggers in memory sort but look what happens with
views look up. PG goes through all records there Seq Scan on views
instead of using visitor_id index and I have only subset of real data to
play around. Can imagine what cost would be running it against bigger
dataset.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Alex Vinnik alvinni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski
plk.zu...@gmail.comwrote:
do you know pgtune?
it's a good tool for starters, if you want a fast postgres and don't
really want to learn what's behind the scenes.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Alex Vinnik alvinni...@gmail.com wrote:
Setting work_mem to 64MB triggers in memory sort but look what happens with
views look up. PG goes through all records there Seq Scan on views instead
of using visitor_id index and I have only subset of real data to play
On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:24 AM, Alex Vinnik wrote:
random_page_cost=1 might be not what you really want.
it would mean that random reads are as fast as as sequential reads, which
probably is true only for SSD
What randon_page_cost would be more appropriate for EC2 EBS Provisioned
volume that
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Ben Chobot be...@silentmedia.com wrote:
On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:24 AM, Alex Vinnik wrote:
random_page_cost=1 might be not what you really want.
it would mean that random reads are as fast as as sequential reads, which
probably is true only for SSD
What
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Alex Vinnik alvinni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Ben Chobot be...@silentmedia.com wrote:
On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:24 AM, Alex Vinnik wrote:
random_page_cost=1 might be not what you really want.
it would mean that random reads are as
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Alex Vinnik alvinni...@gmail.com wrote:
It sure turned out that default settings are not a good fit. Setting
random_page_cost to 1.0 made query to run in 2.6 seconds and I clearly see
that indexes are being used in explain plan and IO utilization is close to
0.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Sort Key: visits.id, views.id
Sort Method: external sort Disk: 4248kB
What query are you running? The query you originally showed us should
not be doing this sort in the first place.
Cheers,
Jeff
Here is
index definition
CREATE INDEX views_visit_id_visit_buoy_index ON views USING btree
(visit_id, visit_buoy)
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Alex Vinnik alvinni...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:39
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski
plk.zu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Alex Vinnik alvinni...@gmail.com wrote:
It sure turned out that default settings are not a good fit.
do you know pgtune?
it's a good tool for starters, if you want a fast
11 matches
Mail list logo
