On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:02:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mathieu De Zutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Apart from avoiding views or subselects when sorting afterwards and
> > putting the whole bunch in a huge SQL statement (which i'll have to
> > produce on-the-fly), do you have an other alt
> Apart from avoiding views or subselects when sorting afterwards and
> putting the whole bunch in a huge SQL statement (which i'll have to
> produce on-the-fly), do you have an other alternative?
> The 2 seconds is way to much, as the database will eventually run on a
> machine that is 10 times s
Tomka Gergely wrote:
2003-08-21 ragyogó napján Bill Moran ezt üzente:
Tomka Gergely wrote:
http://195.199.65.92/~horvaths/pgperformance.html
One of my friend do these tests. We think about the best filesystem for
the Linux/Postgres systems.
The four test was:
teszt1 - 10.000 inserts
teszt2 - 1
2003-08-21 ragyogó napján Bill Moran ezt üzente:
> Tomka Gergely wrote:
> > http://195.199.65.92/~horvaths/pgperformance.html
> >
> > One of my friend do these tests. We think about the best filesystem for
> > the Linux/Postgres systems.
> >
> > The four test was:
> >
> > teszt1 - 10.000 inserts
>
Mathieu De Zutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Apart from avoiding views or subselects when sorting afterwards and
> putting the whole bunch in a huge SQL statement (which i'll have to
> produce on-the-fly), do you have an other alternative?
See if you can avoid the subselects in the view's SELE
Tomka Gergely wrote:
http://195.199.65.92/~horvaths/pgperformance.html
One of my friend do these tests. We think about the best filesystem for
the Linux/Postgres systems.
The four test was:
teszt1 - 10.000 inserts
teszt2 - 10.inserts, 10 in one trans.
teszt3 - 14.000.000 inserts, 1.000 in one tra
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:59:11AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mathieu De Zutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However, i dont want the view to be presorted, but sort it in the
> > queries that use the view. When I do that, the index I have on that
> > field seems to be ignored. It stretches so far
Mathieu De Zutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, i dont want the view to be presorted, but sort it in the
> queries that use the view. When I do that, the index I have on that
> field seems to be ignored. It stretches so far that, when I sort the
> view on A and sort the query on A too, the
On 21 Aug 2003 at 16:51, Tomka Gergely wrote:
> http://195.199.65.92/~horvaths/pgperformance.html
>
> One of my friend do these tests. We think about the best filesystem for
> the Linux/Postgres systems.
>
> The four test was:
>
> teszt1 - 10.000 inserts
> teszt2 - 10.inserts, 10 in one trans.
http://195.199.65.92/~horvaths/pgperformance.html
One of my friend do these tests. We think about the best filesystem for
the Linux/Postgres systems.
The four test was:
teszt1 - 10.000 inserts
teszt2 - 10.inserts, 10 in one trans.
teszt3 - 14.000.000 inserts, 1.000 in one trans.
teszt4 - "Select
Hi,
After my first mail, I found a better testcase (well it's a about the
same, but you have a better look to compare).
See attachment prob-query.sql
The ORDER BY in the FROM clause uses the index.
The last ORDER BY does not use the index.
They should be the same...
The query plans are identica
Hi,
I'm having a performance problem in postgresql.
I have a rather complex view (attached) which, on itself, executes very
fast, as it should. Normally this view is unordered. When I order the
view itself (see comments in attachment), the view executes with about
the same speed since the field i
I try to increase my no. of connections of the Postmaster in my client's
Solaris9 box but fails:
When startup using bin/postmaster -N 300 -B 2000 -D /export/data, I got the
message:
IpcSemaphoreCreate: semget(key=5432004, num=17, 03600) failed: No space left
on device
This error does *not* mean
13 matches
Mail list logo