Re: [GENERAL] [PERFORM] Tuning queries on large database

2004-08-04 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
> sort_mem = 5 That is way, way too large. Try more like 5000 or lower. > num_poste | numeric(9,0)| not null For starters numerics are really, really slow compared to integers. Why aren't you using an integer for this field since youhave '0' decimal places. > sche

Re: [GENERAL] [PERFORM] Tuning queries on large database

2004-08-04 Thread Valerie Schneider DSI/DEV
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Tuning queries on large database >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 >Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:06:54 -0400 >X-MS-Has-Attach: >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Tuning queries on

Re: [GENERAL] [PERFORM] Tuning queries on large database

2004-08-04 Thread Merlin Moncure
> > The result is that for "short queries" (Q1 and Q2) it runs in a few > seconds on both Oracle and PG. The difference becomes important with > Q3 : 8 seconds with oracle > 80 sec with PG > and too much with Q4 : 28s with oracle >17m20s with PG ! > > Of course when I