On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:47 AM, <postgresql@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > eagerly awaiting 6pm when I can bring the DB down and start tweaking. The > effective_work_mem setting is going from 6Gb->88Gb which I think will make > quite a difference. I also wonder if increasing (say x10) of default_statistics_target or just doing ALTER TABLE SET STATISTICS for particular tables will help. It will make planned to produce more precise estimations. Do not forget ANALYZE afer changing it. > > I still can't quite wrap around my head why accessing an index is expected > to use more disk access than doing a bitmap scan of the table itself, but I > guess it does make a bit of sense if postgres assumes the table is more > likely to be cached. > > It's all quite, quite fascinating :) > > I'll let you know how it goes. > > - Phil > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance -- Sergey Konoplev Database and Software Architect http://www.linkedin.com/in/grayhemp Phones: USA +1 415 867 9984 Russia, Moscow +7 901 903 0499 Russia, Krasnodar +7 988 888 1979 Skype: gray-hemp Jabber: gray.ru@xxxxxxxxx -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
