Re: [GENERAL] Re: performance problems with bulk inserts/updates on tsrange with gist-based exclude constrains

2016-09-21 Thread Jeff Janes
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:18 PM, pinker wrote: > Jeff Janes wrote > > Try swapping the order of the columns in the exclude constraint. You > want > > the more selective criterion to appear first in the index/constraint. > > Presumably "key with =" is the most selective, especially if many of you

[GENERAL] Re: performance problems with bulk inserts/updates on tsrange with gist-based exclude constrains

2016-09-21 Thread pinker
Jeff Janes wrote > Try swapping the order of the columns in the exclude constraint. You want > the more selective criterion to appear first in the index/constraint. > Presumably "key with =" is the most selective, especially if many of your > periods are unbounded. I would not be so sure with tha

[GENERAL] Re: Performance issues when the number of records are around 10 Million

2010-05-11 Thread venu madhav
On May 11, 12:03 pm, andreas.kretsch...@schollglas.com ("A. Kretschmer") wrote: > In response to venu madhav : > > > > > Hi all, > >        In my database application, I've a table whose records can > > reach 10M and insertions can happen at a faster rate like 100 > > insertions per second in the p

[GENERAL] Re: Performance problems with Postgresql/ZFS/Non-global zones on Solaris?

2008-02-06 Thread Hannes Dorbath
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, the project I'm working is trying to provide "database-as-a-service" functionality, so I can't really tune the DB since the application/load will vary by customer (and the whole idea was to abstract all the low-level tuning parameters f

Re: [GENERAL] Re: Performance aggregates

2001-05-18 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is there a TODO item I can add here folks? Hash-based aggregation. Isn't it on the list already? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive

[GENERAL] Re: Performance with Large Volumes of Data

2001-04-30 Thread John Coers
I recently posted this on the admin list and got no response. Could anyone here help me? Hi, I am non a "real" sysadmin or dba, but "got stuck" doing it and am trying to learn via a fairly difficult problem that my group must deal with: a LARGE volume of data. I have been working from

[GENERAL] Re: Performance: sql functions v. plpgsql v. plperl

2001-04-26 Thread Karel Zak
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 05:03:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Joel Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > couldn't the parse tree be cached from this for each backend? > > Yes, if someone wanted to work on it ... It needs global query plan cache and integrate it to SQL function handler. The usabl

[GENERAL] Re: Performance: sql functions v. plpgsql v. plperl

2001-04-25 Thread Tom Lane
Joel Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > couldn't the parse tree be cached from this for each backend? Yes, if someone wanted to work on it ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe co

[GENERAL] Re: Performance: sql functions v. plpgsql v. plperl

2001-04-25 Thread Joel Burton
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Tom Lane wrote: > Joel Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Last night, I was doing some amateurish benchmarking and found that, > > contrary to my (admittedly uninformed) expectation, sql functions seem > > *slower* than plsql functions. > > IIRC, sql functions are re-par

[GENERAL] RE: performance...

2001-01-29 Thread chris markiewicz
vacuum analyze seems to have done the trick...this is the sort of thing that happens when a non-dba is doing dba work... sincerest thanks to all that responded! chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of adb Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 4:3

Re: [GENERAL] Re: performance hit with --enable-debug

2001-01-14 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> BTW, it appears to me that configure won't even add the -g unless it >> thinks the compiler is gcc ... ie, --enable-debug is a no-op on non-gcc >> compilers. Peter, isn't that a bug? > In case you're referring to > if test "$ena

Re: [GENERAL] Re: performance hit with --enable-debug

2001-01-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: > BTW, it appears to me that configure won't even add the -g unless it > thinks the compiler is gcc ... ie, --enable-debug is a no-op on non-gcc > compilers. Peter, isn't that a bug? In case you're referring to if test "$enable_debug" = yes && test "$ac_cv_prog_cc_g" = yes; th

Re: [GENERAL] Re: performance hit with --enable-debug

2001-01-14 Thread Tom Lane
"Thomas T. Thai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > figure out so i check my ./configure flags. and there it was > --enable-debug. after sending my email to the list, i recompiled w/o debug > and now i can get my results back from a query in less than 2 > seconds. before it was 59 secs if it returned a

Re: [GENERAL] Re: performance hit with --enable-debug

2001-01-14 Thread Bruce Momjian
> i'm running mnogosearch along with pgsql-current. and performance have > been just terrible to get results back on a resonable time. i couldn't > figure out so i check my ./configure flags. and there it was > --enable-debug. after sending my email to the list, i recompiled w/o debug > and now i

[GENERAL] Re: performance hit with --enable-debug

2001-01-14 Thread Thomas T. Thai
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Thomas T. Thai writes: > > > what kind of performance hit would i endure if i compiled with > > --enable-debug on -current > > The effect in terms of query execution speed is probably minimal. The > problem is that the executables get about 15% la