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
