Re: [PERFORM] Optimizing PostgreSQL for Windows

2007-10-31 Thread Christian Rengstl
Now the execution time for my query is down to ~10 - 13 seconds, which is already a big step ahead. Thanks! Are there any other settings that might be necessary to tweak on windows in order to reduce execution time even a little bit more? One thing i don't understand very well though is that if I e

Re: [PERFORM] Optimizing PostgreSQL for Windows

2007-10-30 Thread Guillaume Lelarge
Christian Rengstl a écrit : > My OS is Windows 2003 with 4GB Ram and Xeon Duo with 3.2 GHz; > shared_buffers is set to 32MB (as I read it should be fairly low on > Windows) and work_mem is set to 2500MB, but nevertheless the query takes > about 38 seconds to finish. The table "table1" contains appr

Re: [PERFORM] Optimizing PostgreSQL for Windows

2007-10-30 Thread Dave Dutcher
>From: Christian Rengstl >Subject: [PERFORM] Optimizing PostgreSQL for Windows > >Hi list, > >I have the following query: >select t.a1, t.a2 from table1 t inner join table2 s >using(id) where t.pid='xyz' and s.chromosome=9 order by s.pos; > >"-

Re: [PERFORM] Optimizing PostgreSQL for Windows

2007-10-30 Thread Marc Schablewski
Although I'm not an expert on this stuff, but 32 MB of shared buffers seems quite low to me, even for a windows machine. I'm running postgres 8.2 on my workstation with 2GB of ram and an AMD x64 3500+ with shared_buffer set to 256MB without any trouble an it's running fine, even on large datasets a

[PERFORM] Optimizing PostgreSQL for Windows

2007-10-30 Thread Christian Rengstl
Hi list, I have the following query: select t.a1, t.a2 from table1 t inner join table2 s using(id) where t.pid='xyz' and s.chromosome=9 order by s.pos; With the following output from analyze: "Sort (cost=35075.03..35077.51 rows=991 width=14) (actual time=33313.718..33321.935 rows=22599 loops=1)