On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 12:58 -0700, Shane wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 03:31:27PM -0400, Sven Willenberger wrote:
> > Right off the bat (if I am interpreting the results of your explain
> > analyze correctly) it looks like the planner is basing its decision to
> > seqscan as it thinks that it needs to filter over 1 million rows (versus
> > the 29,000 rows that actually are pulled). Perhaps increasing stats on
> > msgtime and then analyzing the table may help. Depending on your
> > hardware, decreasing random_page_cost in your postgresql.conf just a
> > touch may help too.
>
> Thanks for the pointers.
>
> I tried increasing the stats from the default of 10 to 25
> with no change. How high would you bring it? Also, I've
> never played with the various cost variables. The database
> sits on a raid5 partition composed of 4 15k u320 SCSI
> drives, dual xeon 2.8(ht enabled) 2gb ram. I suppose this
> might actually increase the cost of fetching a random disk
> page as it may well be on another physical disk and
> wouldn't be in the readahead cache. Any idea as to what it
> should be on this sort of system?
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
Try increasing stats to 100 on just the msgtime column, not the default
(changing the default will only have an effect on newly created columns
-- you may want to change the default back to 10):
ALTER TABLE seen ALTER msgtime SET STATISTICS 100;
After running that command, analyze the table again and see if that
helps.
I am assuming the culprit is this particular column as your index and
search criteria is based on that one. The default random_page_cost I
believe is 4.0; on your system you could probably easily drop it to 3,
possibly lower, and see how that performs.
Sven
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
