On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 05:18:12PM -0800, yuliada wrote:
> Sam Mason wrote:
> > How about combining all 1000 selects into one?
>
> I can't combine these selects into one, I need to run them one after
> another.
Hum, difficult. What other information is in the row that you need
back? Can you tur
If I search for something which is not in db like 'dfsgsdfgsdfgdsfg' it
always work fast. I suspect that speed depends on number of rows retruned,
but I don't know exactly...
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Slow-select-tp26810673p26821859.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - ge
Sam Mason wrote:
>
> Wouldn't this be "lower(value) = lower(?)" ?
>
Yes, I use it as "lower(value) = lower(?)", I typed inaccurate example.
Sam Mason wrote:
>
> So each query is taking approx 300ms? How much data does each one
> return?
>
No more than 1000 rows.
Sam Mason wrote:
>
> H
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 04:56:16AM -0800, yuliada wrote:
> I have a table with column of character varying(100). There are about
> 150.000.000 rows in a table. Index was created as
>
> CREATE INDEX idx_stringv
> ON bn_stringvalue
> USING btree
> (lower(value::text));
>
> I'm trying to execu
show us explain select *
--
GJ
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
I have a table with column of character varying(100). There are about
150.000.000 rows in a table. Index was created as
CREATE INDEX idx_stringv
ON bn_stringvalue
USING btree
(lower(value::text));
I'm trying to execute queries like 'select * from stringvalue where
value=lower(?)'. Making 1
rafalak writes:
> QUERY PLAN without changes
> Aggregate (cost=98018.96..98018.97 rows=1 width=4) (actual
> time=64049.326..64049.328 rows=1 loops=1)
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on tbl_photos_keywords (cost=533.23..97940.02
> rows=31577 width=4) (actual time=157.787..63905.939 rows=119154
> loops=1
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 01:20:33AM -0700, rafalak wrote:
> QUERY PLAN without changes
> Aggregate (cost=98018.96..98018.97 rows=1 width=4) (actual
> time=64049.326..64049.328 rows=1 loops=1)
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on tbl_photos_keywords (cost=533.23..97940.02
> rows=31577 width=4) (actual tim
> shared_buffers = 810MB
> temp_buffers = 128MB
> work_mem = 512MB
> maintenance_work_mem = 256MB
> max_stack_depth = 7MB
> effective_cache_size = 800MB
QUERY PLAN without changes
Aggregate (cost=98018.96..98018.97 rows=1 width=4) (actual
time=64049.326..64049.328 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Bitmap Hea
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM, rafalak wrote:
> Hello i have big table
> 80mln records, ~6GB data, 2columns (int, int)
>
> if query
> select count(col1) from tab where col2=1234;
> return low records (1-10) time is good 30-40ms
> but when records is >1000 time is >12s
>
>
> How to increse perform
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:18 AM, rafalak wrote:
> Hello i have big table
> 80mln records, ~6GB data, 2columns (int, int)
>
> if query
> select count(col1) from tab where col2=1234;
> return low records (1-10) time is good 30-40ms
> but when records is >1000 time is >12s
>
>
> How to increse perfor
Hello i have big table
80mln records, ~6GB data, 2columns (int, int)
if query
select count(col1) from tab where col2=1234;
return low records (1-10) time is good 30-40ms
but when records is >1000 time is >12s
How to increse performace ?
my postgresql.conf
shared_buffers = 810MB
temp_buffers =
Mat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 17:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, it seems to be running at about 5 msec/row, which would be quite
>> respectable if each fetch required another disk seek. I'm wondering why
>> you are (apparently) not managing to get more than one row per page
Mat wrote:
Lines from postgresql.conf that don't start with a '#':
tcpip_socket = true
shared_buffers = 126976 #992 MB
sort_mem = 36864#36 MB
vacuum_mem = 73696 #72 MB
I would suggest scale down shared buffers to 128 or 64MB and set effective cache
size correc
I am running a SELECT to get all tuples within a given date range. This
query is much slwoer than i expected - am i missing something?
I have a table 'meta' with a column 'in_date' of type timestamp(0), i
am trying to select all
records within a given date range. I have an index on 'in_date' and
What query plans are you getting for these various combinations?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
Hi,
I have a fairly large table (1 million records) with the following
structure...
sampleid int4
unitid int4
datetimestamp timestamp
data1 float8
data2 float8
btree indexes on sampleid, unitid, and datetimestamp.
I want to be able to pull out the most recent record for a certain unit.
the qu
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> The FAQ states in entry 4.23 that SELECT...IN statements are slow and
> recommends to use EXISTS...IN statements instead. It also states that this
> will be resolved in some future version.
> I didn't find any entries about that in the TODO list,
The FAQ states in entry 4.23 that SELECT...IN statements are slow and
recommends to use EXISTS...IN statements instead. It also states that this
will be resolved in some future version.
I didn't find any entries about that in the TODO list, does anybody know
when this will be fixed?
PS: The maili
19 matches
Mail list logo
