On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> if I remember well, you can set a number of group by ALTER TABLE ALTER
> COLUMN SET n_distinct = ..
>
> maybe you use it.
I'm not sure where the number 40,000 is coming from either, but I
think Pavel's suggestion is a good one. If you're g
On 24 November 2010 01:11, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 11:38 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> It looks like a hack (and one which is already implemented by connection
>> pool software); the underlying problem should be addressed.
>
> My (poor) understanding is that addressing the underlying probl
On 11/22/2010 11:38 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 11/22/10 16:26, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
On 11/22/10 02:47, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
After 16 clients (which is still good since there are only 12
"real" cores in the system), the performance drops sharply
Yet anoth
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Humair Mohammed wrote:
> I did some further analysis and here are the results:
> work_mem;response_time
> 1MB;62 seconds
> 2MB;2 seconds
> 4MB;700 milliseconds
> 8MB;550 milliseconds
> In all cases shared_buffers were set to the default value of 32MB. As you
> can
I did some further analysis and here are the results:
work_mem;response_time1MB;62 seconds2MB;2 seconds4MB;700 milliseconds8MB;550
milliseconds
In all cases shared_buffers were set to the default value of 32MB. As you can
see the 1 to 2 MB jump on the work_mem does wonders. I probably don't need
