I have a table with 4,889,820 records in it. The
table also has 47 fields. I'm having problems with
update performance. Just as a test, I issued the
following update:
update valley set test='this is a test'
This took 905641 ms. Isn't that kind of slow? There
aren't any indexes, triggers, con
Mark Makarowsky wrote:
I have a table with 4,889,820 records in it. The
table also has 47 fields. I'm having problems with
update performance. Just as a test, I issued the
following update:
update valley set test='this is a test'
This took 905641 ms. Isn't that kind of slow?
The limiting
On 8/6/07, Sven Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok thanks everybody for the calrification, after all now I allready learned
> something new... ;)
>
> My employer is currently thinking about migration to 8.2.x because of your
> feedback, so I think that the problem could be resolved... ;)
Note
On 8/7/07, Mark Makarowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a table with 4,889,820 records in it. The
> table also has 47 fields. I'm having problems with
> update performance. Just as a test, I issued the
> following update:
>
> update valley set test='this is a test'
>
> This took 905641 ms
On Tuesday 07 August 2007 05:58, Mark Makarowsky
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a table with 4,889,820 records in it. The
> table also has 47 fields. I'm having problems with
> update performance. Just as a test, I issued the
> following update:
>
> update valley set test='this is a test'
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 02:33:19PM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> Mark Makarowsky wrote:
> >I have a table with 4,889,820 records in it. The
> >table also has 47 fields. I'm having problems with
> >update performance. Just as a test, I issued the
> >following update:
> >
> >update valley set tes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Makarowsky) writes:
> I have a table with 4,889,820 records in it. The
> table also has 47 fields. I'm having problems with
> update performance. Just as a test, I issued the
> following update:
>
> update valley set test='this is a test'
>
> This took 905641 ms. Isn't t
On 8/7/07, Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 02:33:19PM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> > Mark Makarowsky wrote:
> > >I have a table with 4,889,820 records in it. The
> > >table also has 47 fields. I'm having problems with
> > >update performance. Just as a test, I iss
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 02:36:18PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On 8/7/07, Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 02:33:19PM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> > > Mark Makarowsky wrote:
> > > >I have a table with 4,889,820 records in it. The
> > > >table also has 47 fields.
Can you provide more detail on what you mean by your
two suggestions below:
Yeah, I've used "vertical partitioning" very
successfully in the past, though I've never done it
for just a single field. I'll typically leave the few
most common fields in the "main" table and pull
everything else into a
On Aug 7, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Mark Makarowsky wrote:
Can you provide more detail on what you mean by your
two suggestions below:
Yeah, I've used "vertical partitioning" very
successfully in the past, though I've never done it
for just a single field. I'll typically leave the few
most common field
11 matches
Mail list logo
