Re: [GENERAL] Problem with large table not using indexes (I think)

2006-12-25 Thread Benjamin Arai
One more note about my problem, when you run a query on older data in the table then it work great but if you query newer data then is very slow. Ex. SELECT * from my_table WHERE date >=12/1/2005 and date <= 12/1/2006; <- slow SELECT * from my_table WHERE date >=12/1/2002 and date <= 12/1/200

Re: [GENERAL] Problem with large table not using indexes (I think)

2006-12-23 Thread Benjamin Arai
Function Scan on "getTimeSeries" (cost=0.00..12.50 rows=1000 width=24) (actual time=11065.981..11067.008 rows=262 loops=1) Total runtime: 11067.991 ms (2 rows) It is a PL function. Do I need to break it down? A. Kretschmer wrote: am Sat, dem 23.12.2006, um 11:26:08 -0800 mailte Benjamin Ara

Re: [GENERAL] Problem with large table not using indexes (I think)

2006-12-23 Thread A. Kretschmer
am Sat, dem 23.12.2006, um 11:26:08 -0800 mailte Benjamin Arai folgendes: > because it would literally take over a week to complete. Any help would > be greatly appreciated. What says an 'explain analyse'? Andreas -- Andreas Kretschmer Kontakt: Heynitz: 035242/47215, D1: 0160/7141639 (meh

[GENERAL] Problem with large table not using indexes (I think)

2006-12-23 Thread Benjamin Arai
Hi, The largest table in my database (30GB) has mysteriously went from taking milli-seconds to perform a query to minutes. This disks are fine and I have a 4GB shared_memory. Could this slow down have to do with the fsm_max_pages or something else like that? I made it larger but the querie