Re: Weird performance drop after VACUUM - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From asif ali
Subject Re: Weird performance drop after VACUUM
Date
Msg-id 20050829225912.69965.qmail@web35204.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Weird performance drop after VACUUM  (Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>)
List pgsql-performance
Michael,
The
effective_cache_size, random_page_cost, work_mem
were set to default. (commented).
I have changed the setting of these and now the
performance is better see below.

"HashAggregate  (cost=42573.89..42925.52 rows=20093
width=37) (actual time=5273.984..5430.733 rows=55717
loops=1)"
"  ->  Seq Scan on keyword_conversion_table c
(cost=0.00..27336.12 rows=870730 width=37) (actual
time=0.052..1405.576 rows=885493 loops=1)"
"        Filter: ((conversion_date >=
'2005-06-07'::date) AND (conversion_date <=
'2005-08-17'::date))"
"Total runtime: 5463.764 ms"



Thanks a lot



--- Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:07:17AM -0700, asif ali
> wrote:
> > The database is on the same system.
> > What I am doing is only "VACUUM analyze
> > conversion_table"
> >
> > I did the the same thing on a newly created
> database.
> > And got the same result. So after "VACUUM analyze"
> > performance dropped.
> > Please see this. Runtime changes from "7755.115"
> to
> > "14859.291" ms
>
> As has been pointed out a couple of times, you're
> getting a different
> plan after VACUUM ANALYZE because the row count
> estimates are more
> accurate.  Unfortunately the more accurate estimates
> result in a
> query plan that's slower than the plan for the less
> accurate
> estimates.  PostgreSQL *thinks* the plan will be
> faster but your
> results show that it isn't, so you might need to
> adjust some of the
> planner's cost constants.
>
> A asked some questions that you didn't answer, so
> I'll ask them again:
>
> What's your effective_cache_size setting?
> What's your work_mem (8.x) or sort_mem (7.x)
> setting?
> What's your random_page_cost setting?
> How much available RAM does the machine have?
> What version of PostgreSQL are you running?
>
> Various tuning guides give advice on how to set the
> above and other
> configuration variables.  Here's one such guide:
>
> http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList/
>
> --
> Michael Fuhr
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>




____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance for relative large DB
Next
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: shared buffers