On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Kouber Saparev <kouber@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Now, recently I have altered some of the default parameters in order to get > as much as possible out of the hardware - 12 GB of RAM, 8 processors. So, I > guess I have done something wrong, thus the planner is taking that wrong > decision. Here's what I have changed in postgresql.conf (from the default > one): > > max_connections = 200 > shared_buffers = 256MB > work_mem = 64MB > maintenance_work_mem = 128MB > max_stack_depth = 6MB > max_fsm_pages = 100000 > synchronous_commit = off > wal_buffers = 1MB > commit_delay = 100 > commit_siblings = 5 > checkpoint_segments = 10 > checkpoint_timeout = 10min > random_page_cost = 0.1 > effective_cache_size = 2048MB > > Any idea what's wrong here? If you left seq_page_cost (which isn't mentioned here) at the default value but reduced random_page_cost to 0.1, then you have random_page_cost < seq_page_cost. That's probably Bad. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
