Thanks for the tips, Josh. Would you know of where I can find the TpC-E
effort online? I've looked, and have only found references to the 'summer of
code' project that Riklas was doing/mentoring.
Also, I'm going to spend some time digging into the code, for the WAL log
issue you mentioned. Let's
Hi List,
I want to run a Select Query on a table. But i dont want the query to pick a
index defined on that table.
So can i instruct the planner not to pick that index.
--
Regards
Gauri
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 06:26:51PM +0530, Gauri Kanekar wrote:
> I want to run a Select Query on a table. But i dont want the query to pick a
> index defined on that table.
>
> So can i instruct the planner not to pick that index.
Why don't you want the planner to use the index? Is there a speci
I want the planner to ignore a specific index.
I am testing some query output. For that purpose i dont want the index.
I that possible to ignore a index by the planner.
On 2/16/07, Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 06:26:51PM +0530, Gauri Kanekar wrote:
> I want to
Gauri Kanekar escribió:
> I want the planner to ignore a specific index.
> I am testing some query output. For that purpose i dont want the index.
> I that possible to ignore a index by the planner.
Sure:
BEGIN
DROP INDEX foo
SELECT
ROLLBACK
--
Alvaro Herrera
"Gauri Kanekar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I want the planner to ignore a specific index.
> I am testing some query output. For that purpose i dont want the index.
> I that possible to ignore a index by the planner.
begin;
drop index soandso;
explain analyze ...;
This is very similar to the problem I posted to this list
yesterday. Apparently, if you append an empty string to the column
data in your WHERE clause it will force the planer to treat it as a
filter and not an index cond. It's extremely ugly, but this method
doesn't seem to be anymore
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 20:01 +0530, Gauri Kanekar wrote:
>
> I want the planner to ignore a specific index.
> I am testing some query output. For that purpose i dont want the
> index.
> I that possible to ignore a index by the planner.
If the indexed field is an intger, add 0 to it.
--
Brad Nic
On 2/15/07, Guillaume Smet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The use of PostGIS is slower than the previous cube/earthdistance
approach (on a similar query and plan).
For the record, here are new information about my proximity query work.
Thanks to Tom Lane, I found the reason of the performance drop
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:27:46PM -0500, Brad Nicholson wrote:
> If the indexed field is an intger, add 0 to it.
Won't that also invalidate the statistics?
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain a
> Note the DROP INDEX will acquire exclusive lock on the table, so this
> might not be the greatest thing to do in a production environment.
> In PG 8.2 and up there is a sneakier way to do it that won't acquire
> any more lock than the statement-under-test does:
>
> begin;
> update pg
Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Your suggestion about the pet_state index was right on. I tried
>> "Analyze" on it, but still got the same bad estimate. However, I then
>> used "reindex" on that index, and that fixed the estimate accuracy,
>> which made the query r
"George Pavlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In PG 8.2 and up there is a sneakier way to do it that won't acquire
>> any more lock than the statement-under-test does:
>>
>> begin;
>> update pg_index set indisvalid = false
>> where indexrelid = 'soandso'::regclass;
>> explain analyze ...;
>> roll
13 matches
Mail list logo
