On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Ivan Voras <ivoras@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 7.1.2010 15:23, Lefteris wrote:
>
>> I think what you all said was very helpful and clear! The only part
>> that I still disagree/don't understand is the shared_buffer option:))
>
> Did you ever try increasing shared_buffers to what was suggested (around
> 4 GB) and see what happens (I didn't see it in your posts)?
No I did not to that yet, mainly because I need the admin of the
machine to change the shmmax of the kernel and also because I have no
multiple queries running. Does Seq scan uses shared_buffers?
>
> Shared_buffers can be thought as the PostgreSQLs internal cache. If the
> pages being scanned for a particular query are in the cache, this will
> help performance very much on multiple exequtions of the same query.
> OTOH, since the file system's cache didn't help you significantly, there
> is low possibility shared_buffers will. It is still worth trying.
>
> From the description of the data ("...from years 1988 to 2009...") it
> looks like the query for "between 2000 and 2009" pulls out about half of
> the data. If an index could be used instead of seqscan, it could be
> perhaps only 50% faster, which is still not very comparable to others.
>
> The table is very wide, which is probably why the tested databases can
> deal with it faster than PG. You could try and narrow the table down
> (for instance: remove the Div* fields) to make the data more
> "relational-like". In real life, speedups in this circumstances would
> probably be gained by normalizing the data to make the basic table
> smaller and easier to use with indexing.
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
