t has
> relatively poor concurrency, and creating a hash index is significantly
> slower than creating a b+-tree index.
This being the case, is there ever ANY reason for someone to use it?
If not, then shouldn't we consider deprecating it and eventually
removing it. This would reduce com
ing something here? I would think an
index lookup that is an equality, even with 1M entries, wouldn't take
more than 1/2 second.
Chris
--
| Christopher Petrilli
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
events (cost=0.00..35228.00
rows=1 width=36) (actual time=0.060..1716.214 rows=7971 loops=1)
Filter: (src_ip = 3232235513::bigint)
Total runtime: 82950.584 ms
(25 rows)
That's the second run of the same query, so that it can take advantage
of caching. The first run was
is that they are seeing better performance out of a
quad-Opteron than a 3Ghz Xeon box (quad as well), which they believe
reflects superior memory architecture. So, if someone has run on a
quad-Xeon of similar "specs", then I would imagine you should see
similar, if not better, numbers.
Chris
to be hard to hit those
numbers. This is a place where the "big databases" are better. But
then, that's the top 5% of installs. Tradeoffs.
Chris
--
| Christopher Petrilli
| petrilli (at) amber.org
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
f sanity of the
files when you do a backup, so given PostgreSQL's current lack of
PITR, I'd likely stop the database, split the mirrors, and restart the
database. I don't know of anyway to coalesce the database and quiet it
for 1 second to do the split.
C
fere with other insertions.
This is a bit DSSish, I guess, but I would think it could be managed
by nicing processes?
Chris
--
| Christopher Petrilli
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose a
It's not the latter, it's missing... it's not in data/template1 either. And
if I fake it (put the X.Y version in the file), I still am missing the
pg_user tables... I've tried this 3-4 times on the same install as well...
no go.
This is on PostgreSQL 6.5.3 just dow
