Hi,
Thanks for your response. The actual query is below; the joins are only 4
deep. Adjusting the stats target did help, but not dramatically.
EFFICIENT PLAN:
# explain analyze SELECT ev.eid FROM events ev INNER JOIN (events_join ej
INNER JOIN (groups_join gj INNER JOIN groups g ON gj.gid = g.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:15:57PM -0700, Daniel Gish wrote:
> We are running Postgresql 8.1, and getting dramatically inconsistant results
> after running VACUUM ANALYZE. Sometimes after analyzing the database, the
> query planner chooses a very efficient plan (15 rows, 4.744 ms), and
> sometimes
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 17:15, Daniel Gish wrote:
> Hi,
> We are running Postgresql 8.1, and getting dramatically inconsistant results
> after running VACUUM ANALYZE. Sometimes after analyzing the database, the
> query planner chooses a very efficient plan (15 rows, 4.744 ms), and
> sometimes a terr
Hi,
We are running Postgresql 8.1, and getting dramatically inconsistant results
after running VACUUM ANALYZE. Sometimes after analyzing the database, the
query planner chooses a very efficient plan (15 rows, 4.744 ms), and
sometimes a terrible one (24 rows, 3536.995 ms). Here's the abbreviated
q
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:43:59PM -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> I believe it's 7.4 where the cost-based vacuum parameters entered in,
> so that would, in principle, already be an option.
>
> [rummaging around...]
>
> Hmm There was a patch for 7.4, but it's only "standard" as of
> 8.0...
And
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) writes:
> Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm investigating a potential IO issue. We're running 7.4 on AIX 5.1.
>> During periods of high activity (reads, writes, and vacuums), we are
>> seeing iostat reporting 100% disk usage. I have a feeling that
Brad Nicholson wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Brad Nicholson wrote:
I'm investigating a potential IO issue. We're running 7.4 on AIX
5.1. During periods of high activity (reads, writes, and vacuums),
we are seeing iostat reporting 100% disk usage. I have a feeling
that the iostat numbers
Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm investigating a potential IO issue. We're running 7.4 on AIX 5.1.
> During periods of high activity (reads, writes, and vacuums), we are
> seeing iostat reporting 100% disk usage. I have a feeling that the
> iostat numbers are misleading. I ca
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Brad Nicholson wrote:
I'm investigating a potential IO issue. We're running 7.4 on AIX
5.1. During periods of high activity (reads, writes, and vacuums),
we are seeing iostat reporting 100% disk usage. I have a feeling
that the iostat numbers are misleading. I can
Brad Nicholson wrote:
I'm investigating a potential IO issue. We're running 7.4 on AIX
5.1. During periods of high activity (reads, writes, and vacuums), we
are seeing iostat reporting 100% disk usage. I have a feeling that
the iostat numbers are misleading. I can make iostat usage jump fro
I'm investigating a potential IO issue. We're running 7.4 on AIX 5.1.
During periods of high activity (reads, writes, and vacuums), we are
seeing iostat reporting 100% disk usage. I have a feeling that the
iostat numbers are misleading. I can make iostat usage jump from less
than 10% to gre
11 matches
Mail list logo
