Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql
Date
Msg-id 22586.1290359761@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql  (tv@fuzzy.cz)
Responses Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql
List pgsql-performance
tv@fuzzy.cz writes:
>> Second, I modified the work_mem setting to 2GB (reloaded config) and I see
>> a response time of 38 seconds. Results below from EXPLAIN ANALYZE:

> How did you reload the config? Using 'kill -HUP pid'? That should work
> fine. Have you cheched 'work_mem' after the reload?

> Because the explain plans are exactly the same (structure, estimated
> costs). The really interesting bit is this and it did not change at all

>    Buckets: 1024 Batches: 64  Memory Usage: 650kB

If that didn't change, I'm prepared to bet that the OP didn't actually
manage to change the active value of work_mem.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: autovacuum blocks the operations of other manual vacuum
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql