Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Nov 21, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> tv@xxxxxxxx writes:
>>> Second, I modified the work_mem setting to 2GB (reloaded config) and I see
>>> a response time of 38 seconds. Results below from EXPLAIN ANALYZE:
> 
>> How did you reload the config? Using 'kill -HUP pid'? That should work
>> fine. Have you cheched 'work_mem' after the reload?
> 
>> Because the explain plans are exactly the same (structure, estimated
>> costs). The really interesting bit is this and it did not change at all
> 
>>   Buckets: 1024 Batches: 64  Memory Usage: 650kB
> 
> If that didn't change, I'm prepared to bet that the OP didn't actually
> manage to change the active value of work_mem.

Yep.  All this speculation about slow disks and/or COALESCE strikes me as likely totally off-base. I think the original poster needs to run "show work_mem" right before the EXPLAIN ANALYZE to make sure the new value they set actually stuck. There's no reason for the planner to have used only 650kB if work_mem is set to anything >=2MB.

...Robert
-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance



[Postgresql General]     [Postgresql PHP]     [PHP Users]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Yosemite]

  Powered by Linux