Hello Richard,
Wednesday, March 15, 2006, 3:35:26 PM, you wrote:
> Abbath wrote:
>> is slow for the first time (7-15 sec), but then using the same keyword
>> next time it is fast (10-100 ms). The reason is, as I read, first time
>> it is not cached at all, but next time the index pages are
>> cached so it is fast.
>>
>> I think in a real word application, in this form, it is useless, because
>> the 15 sec search time is not allowable for any user.
> What, never? Even if this facility is only used once a year by one user
> and you have 1000 other users who need their queries to complete in 0.2
> secs at most? What you mean is that it's not useful for *your*
> application - don't assume the same applies to all applications.
The search function will be a frequently used one so it shouldn't be
slow. Ok, maybe it is not suitable for me if I want a user friendly
search function.
>> Is there a way
>> to initially cache the index or tune some postgres parameter? (I tried
>> to increase "shared_buffers", "effective_cache_size", "work_mem" but
>> had no effect on it) Or I should look for another search technology? (I
>> just want to provide a 2 sec maximum search time at 1 million records,
>> I think it is not a big expectation nowadays)
> If you want to force the data to be cached, just put a cron-job in to
> run a query for "abc" or whatever once a minute.
I can't guess what the user want to search.
> Of course, if it turns out that your users aren't running the query very
> often then you're wasting resources, and if they are running it often
> then again you're wasting resources. But - if you really need to, that's
> the solution.
It seems if I periodically use VACUUM ANALYZE, it helps to reduce the search
time...I will see how can I tune it more.
Thanks for the reply.
Abbath
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
