On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Farhan Husain <russoue@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Farhan Husain <russoue@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@xxxxxxxxx> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Farhan Husain <russoue@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Initially, it was the default value (32MB). Later I played with that >> >> > value >> >> > thinking that it might improve the performance. But all the values >> >> > resulted >> >> > in same amount of time. >> >> >> >> Well, if you set it back to what we consider to be a reasonable value, >> >> rerun EXPLAIN ANALYZE, and post that plan, it might help us tell you >> >> what to do next. >> >> >> >> ...Robert >> > >> > Right now I am running the query again with 32MB work_mem. It is taking >> > a >> > long time as before. However, I have kept the following values >> > unchanged: >> > >> > shared_buffers = 32MB # min 128kB or >> > max_connections*16kB >> >> That's REALLY small for pgsql. Assuming your machine has at least 1G >> of ram, I'd set it to 128M to 256M as a minimum. > > As I wrote in a previous email, I had the value set to 1792MB (the highest I > could set) and had the same execution time. This value is not helping me to > bring down the execution time. No, that was work_mem. This is shared_buffers. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
