Re: RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that thakes - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Stephan Szabo
Subject Re: RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that thakes
Date
Msg-id 20040206085014.N88075@megazone.bigpanda.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that thakes 655.07 msec to be runned ?  ("Bruno BAGUETTE" <pgsql-ml@baguette.net>)
Responses RE : RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that thakes 655.07 msec to be runned ?
List pgsql-performance
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Bruno BAGUETTE wrote:

> > In addition to what Tom said, the row estimates look
> > suspiciously default. You mention vacuuming, but do you ever
> > analyze the tables?
>
> I run VACUUM FULL ANALYZE with the postgres user on all the PostgreSQL
> databases on the server, twice a day, sometimes more.

Wierd, because you're getting 1000 estimated on both people and
organizations.  What does pg_class have to say about those two tables?

> > Also, what do you have sort_mem set to?
>
> [root@levure data]# cat postgresql.conf | grep sort_mem
> sort_mem = 6144                 # min 64, size in KB
>
> Do you think I should increase that value ?

Hmm, I'd expect that the sort would fit in that space in general.  If you
want to try different values, you can set sort_mem from psql rather than
changing the configuration file.

----

On my machine the index does actually help, although I needed to lower
random_page_cost a little from its default of 4 to get it to use it
preferentially, but I'm also getting times about 1/3 of yours (and my
machine is pretty poor) so I think I may not have data that matches yours
very well.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Bruno BAGUETTE"
Date:
Subject: RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that thakes 655.07 msec to be runned ?
Next
From: markw@osdl.org
Date:
Subject: Re: 7.3 vs 7.4 performance