Re: [PERFORM] Hints proposal

2006-10-15 Thread Craig A. James
So let's cut to the bone: If someone thinks a proposal is a bad idea, and they're volunteering their time on an open-source project, why would they implement the proposal? In all the heat and smoke, I believe there are two basic conclusions we all agree on. 1. Optimizer: a) A perfect optimi

Re: [PERFORM] Hints proposal

2006-10-15 Thread Craig A. James
Josh Berkus wrote: I actually think the way to attack this issue is to discuss the kinds of errors the planner makes, and what tweaks we could do to correct them. Here's the ones I'm aware of: -- Incorrect selectivity of WHERE clause -- Incorrect selectivity of JOIN -- Wrong estimate of rows r

Re: [PERFORM] Performance Optimization for Dummies 2 - the SQL

2006-10-15 Thread Carlo Stonebanks
Hey Tom, thanks for jumping in. Nothing on TV on a Sunday afternoon? ;-) Appreciate teh input. Here is vacuum verbose output for both the tables in question. Carlo INFO: vacuuming "mdx_core.facility" INFO: index "facility_pkey" now contains 832399 row versions in 3179 pages DETAIL: 0 index

Re: [PERFORM] Performance Optimization for Dummies 2 - the SQL

2006-10-15 Thread Tom Lane
"Carlo Stonebanks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Curiously, it's using index scans, and it really looks like a simple query > to me. I am completely baffled. The two tables in question have about 800K > rows each - not exactly an incredible number. The EXPLAIN is simple, but the > performance is

Re: [PERFORM] Performance Optimization for Dummies 2 - the SQL

2006-10-15 Thread Carlo Stonebanks
Hi Merlin, Well, I'm back. first of all, thanks for your dogged determination to help me out - it is much appreciated. I owe you a beer or twelve. The import has been running for a week. The import program got faster as I tuned things. I capture the dynamic SQL statements generated by the app,

Re: [ADMIN] [PERFORM] autovacuum on a -mostly- r/o table

2006-10-15 Thread Tobias Brox
[Matthew T. O'Connor - Sun at 10:42:34AM -0400] > Yeah, I think if the delay settings are too high it can cause problems, > that's part of the reason we have yet to turn these on be default since > we won't have enough data to suggest good values. Can you tell us what > settings you finally set

Re: [ADMIN] [PERFORM] autovacuum on a -mostly- r/o table

2006-10-15 Thread Matthew T. O'Connor
Tobias Brox wrote: [Matthew T. O'Connor - Wed at 02:33:10PM -0400] In addition autovacuum respects the work of manual or cron based vacuums, so if you issue a vacuum right after a daily batch insert / update, autovacuum won't repeat the work of that manual vacuum. I was experimenting

Re: [ADMIN] [PERFORM] autovacuum on a -mostly- r/o table

2006-10-15 Thread Tobias Brox
[Matthew T. O'Connor - Wed at 02:33:10PM -0400] > In addition autovacuum respects the work of manual or cron based > vacuums, so if you issue a vacuum right after a daily batch insert / > update, autovacuum won't repeat the work of that manual vacuum. I was experimenting a bit with autovacuum no