Hi Scot,
scott.marlowe said:
> So, to start with, try changing random page cost. you can change it for
As "unrealistic" as it should be, I need <1 before Postgres takes the
bait. Initialy 0.7, to be exact, but later It also worked at a little
higher setting of 1. I have given PG 96Mb of memory to play with, so
likely all my data will be in cache. So no very fast disk (6MB/sec reads),
but loads of RAM.
Should I try tweaking any of the other parameters?
> performance of seq versus index. you'll often find that a query that
> screams when the caches are full of your data is quite slow when the cache
> is empty.
True, but as this single query is going to be the work horse of the web
service I am developing, it is likely all data will always be in memory,
even if I'd have to stick several gigs of ram in.
Thanks,
Bas.
