On Oct 21, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Gregory Stark wrote:
"Rajarshi Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The table itself is about 10M rows corresponding to 14GB.
Each row is on average 1.4kB ?
Yes, though some rows may 10's of Kb
Perhaps you should send more details of the
table definition and t
On 10/21/07, Rajarshi Guha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > With 8G of RAM, you should start with shared_buffers around 2 - 3G, if
> > you're using a modern version of PG.
>
> I can do that but I'm a little confused. Earlier postings on the list
> indicate that shared_buffers should be about 10% of
"Rajarshi Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The table itself is about 10M rows corresponding to 14GB.
Each row is on average 1.4kB ? Perhaps you should send more details of the
table definition and the typical size of each column. It's possible you have
the columns you're selecting on being st
Rajarshi Guha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, it might just be the case that given the size of the index, I
> cannot make bounding box queries (which will use the CUBE index) go
> any faster. But I am surprised that that the other type of query
> (using cube_distance which by definition mu
On Oct 21, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:36:00AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
What version of PG are you using and what is your shared_buffers
setting?
With 8G of RAM, you should start with shared_buffers around 2 -
3G, if
you're using a modern v
On Oct 21, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Bill Moran wrote:
Rajarshi Guha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, relating to my previous queries on doing spatial searches on 10M
rows, it seems that most of my queries return within 2 minutes.
Generally this is not too bad, though faster is always better.
Interest
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:36:00AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> What version of PG are you using and what is your shared_buffers setting?
>
> With 8G of RAM, you should start with shared_buffers around 2 - 3G, if
> you're using a modern version of PG. With that much shared memory, a
> large portion
Rajarshi Guha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi, relating to my previous queries on doing spatial searches on 10M
> rows, it seems that most of my queries return within 2 minutes.
> Generally this is not too bad, though faster is always better.
>
> Interestingly, it appears that the CUBE index
On 10/20/07, Rajarshi Guha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, relating to my previous queries on doing spatial searches on 10M
> rows, it seems that most of my queries return within 2 minutes.
> Generally this is not too bad, though faster is always better.
>
> Interestingly, it appears that the CUBE
Hi, relating to my previous queries on doing spatial searches on 10M
rows, it seems that most of my queries return within 2 minutes.
Generally this is not too bad, though faster is always better.
Interestingly, it appears that the CUBE index for the table in
question is about 3GB (the table
10 matches
Mail list logo
