Hi.
I install auto_explain module for monitoring queries.
By the way, is any tool to tune planner automatically ?
pasman
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-per
=?ISO-8859-2?Q?pasman_pasma=F1ski?= writes:
> Thanks for reply.
> I tested random changes and query runs fastest after:
> set seq_page_cost = 0.1;
> set random_page_cost = 0.1;
> cpu_operator_cost = 0.01
As a general rule, "optimizing" those settings on the basis of testing a
single query is a g
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> If I'm correct, you're basically telling postgresql that your
> disk is unusually fast compared to your CPU. Even if some queries
> will run faster from a side-effect of these settings, you're
> likely to create other random problems...
If this is set globally and
pasman pasmański writes:
> Thanks for reply.
> I tested random changes and query runs fastest after:
>
> set seq_page_cost = 0.1;
> set random_page_cost = 0.1;
> cpu_operator_cost = 0.01
If I'm correct, you're basically telling postgresql that your
disk is unusually fast compared to your CPU. Ev
Thanks for reply.
I tested random changes and query runs fastest after:
set seq_page_cost = 0.1;
set random_page_cost = 0.1;
cpu_operator_cost = 0.01
pasman
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://
pasman pasma*ski wrote:
> -> Index Scan using NTA_5" on "NumeryA" a
> (cost=0.01..10016.75 rows=24175 width=42) (actual
> time=0.132..308.018 rows=33597 loops=1)"
> seq_page_cost = 0.3
> random_page_cost = 0.5
Your data is heavily cached (to be able to read 33597 rows ran
hello.
I ve the table NumeryA with 3 indices. Query below uses incorrect index.
SELECT
A."NKA",
A."NTA",
Min("PołączeniaMin") || ',' || Max("PołączeniaMax") AS "Biling",
Sum("Ile")::text AS "Ilość CDR",
R."LP"::text AS "Sprawa",
R."Osoba weryfikująca" AS "Osoba",
to_char(min("Warto
