Re: Any way to speed this up?

From: Joel Fradkin
Subject: Re: Any way to speed this up?
Date: ,
Msg-id: 006701c53b8f$9274fdf0$797ba8c0@jfradkin
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Any way to speed this up?  (Tom Lane)
Responses: Re: Any way to speed this up?  (Tom Lane)
Re: Any way to speed this up?  (John Arbash Meinel)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Any way to speed this up?  ("Joel Fradkin", )
 Re: Any way to speed this up?  ("Keith Worthington", )
 Re: Any way to speed this up?  (John Arbash Meinel, )
  Re: Any way to speed this up?  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: Any way to speed this up?  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Any way to speed this up?  ("Joel Fradkin", )
   Re: Any way to speed this up?  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: Any way to speed this up?  ("Joel Fradkin", )
     Re: Any way to speed this up?  (John Arbash Meinel, )
     Re: Any way to speed this up?  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
   Re: Any way to speed this up?  (John Arbash Meinel, )

shared_buffers = 8000        # min 16, at least max_connections*2, 8KB
each
work_mem = 8192#1024        # min 64, size in KB
max_fsm_pages = 30000        # min max_fsm_relations*16, 6 bytes each
effective_cache_size = 40000 #1000    # typically 8KB each
random_page_cost = 1.2#4        # units are one sequential page
fetch cost

These are the items I changed.
In the development box I turned random page cost to .2 because I figured it
would all be faster using an index as all my data is at a minimum being
selected by clientnum.

But the analyze I sent in is from these settings above on a windows box.
If I was running the analyze (pgadmin) on a windows box but connecting to a
linux box would the times be accurate or do I have to run the analyze on the
linux box for that to happen?

I am a little unclear why I would need an index on associate by location as
I thought it would be using indexes in location and jobtitle for their
joins.
I did not say where locationid = x in my query on the view.
I have so much to learn about SQL.
Joel





pgsql-performance by date:

From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Recognizing range constraints (was Re: Plan for relatively simple query seems to be very inefficient)
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Recognizing range constraints (was Re: Plan for relatively simple query seems to be very inefficient)