Re: [PERFORM] FTS performance issue probably due to wrong planner estimate of detoasting

2013-02-07 Thread Jesper Krogh
On 08/02/13 01:52, Stefan Keller wrote: Hi, I have problems with the performance of FTS in a query like this: SELECT * FROM FullTextSearch WHERE content_tsv_gin @@ plainto_tsquery('english', 'good'); It's slow (> 30 sec.) for some GB (27886 html files, originally 73 MB zipped). The planner

Re: [PERFORM] FTS performance issue probably due to wrong planner estimate of detoasting

2013-02-07 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello you can try to wrap searching to immutable function and use following trick http://postgres.cz/wiki/PostgreSQL_SQL_Tricks#Using_IMMUTABLE_functions_as_hints_for_the_optimizer Regards Pavel Stehule 2013/2/8 Stefan Keller : > Hi, > > I have problems with the performance of FTS in a query l

[PERFORM] FTS performance issue probably due to wrong planner estimate of detoasting

2013-02-07 Thread Stefan Keller
Hi, I have problems with the performance of FTS in a query like this: SELECT * FROM FullTextSearch WHERE content_tsv_gin @@ plainto_tsquery('english', 'good'); It's slow (> 30 sec.) for some GB (27886 html files, originally 73 MB zipped). The planner obviously always chooses table scan: http:/

Re: [PERFORM] postgresql.conf recommendations

2013-02-07 Thread Josh Krupka
Just as an update from my angle on the THP side... I put together a systemtap script last night and so far it's confirming my theory (at least in our environment). I want to go through some more data and make some changes on our test box to see if we can make it go away before declaring success -

Re: [PERFORM] postgresql.conf recommendations

2013-02-07 Thread Johnny Tan
I appreciate all the responses on this thread, even though some are conflicting :). We are going to try these one at a time, but we'll likely need a day or so inbetween each to see what impact (if any), so it will take time. But I will post back here our findings. We'll start with dirty_background

Re: [PERFORM] postgresql.conf recommendations

2013-02-07 Thread Charles Gomes
I've benchmarked shared_buffers with high and low settings, in a server dedicated to postgres with 48GB my settings are: shared_buffers = 37GB effective_cache_size = 38GB Having a small number and depending on OS caching is unpredictable, if the server is dedicated to postgres you want make su

Re: [PERFORM] postgresql.conf recommendations

2013-02-07 Thread Strahinja Kustudić
As others suggested having shared_buffers = 48GB is to large. You should never need to go above 8GB. I have a similar server and mine has shared_buffers = 8GB checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9 This looks like a problem of dirty memory being flushed to the disk. You should set your monitoring to