"Zaremba, Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This does a full sequential scan
> select id from details where begin_time > to_timestamp('03/08/25
> 18:30');
to_timestamp('foo') is not a constant, so the planner doesn't know how
much of the table this is going to select. In the absence of tha
Has anyone seen any performace problems with the use to to_timestamp?
When I use it in a where clause I get a full file scan, when I don't it
uses the index
for the query. The begin_time column is of type timestamp.
This does a full sequential scan
select id from details where begin_tim
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 11:01, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > "AS" == Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> AS> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 12:05:03AM -0700, William Yu wrote:
> >> We should see a boost when we move to 64-bit Linux and hopefully another
> >> one when NUMA for Linux is production-
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 11:47, Greg Spiegelberg wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 11:14, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:26:14PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >>
> >>>My experience has been that once you get past 6 disks, RAID5 is faster
> >>>than RAID1
Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The front-end small processes get to deal with your dialup customers
> trickling down the data since it buffers your backend for you.
Huh. Well, I used to think this. But I think I was wrong. I used to have
apache proxy servers running in front of the mo
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 11:14, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:26:14PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
My experience has been that once you get past 6 disks, RAID5 is faster
than RAID1+0.
Also depends on your filesystem and volume manager. As near as I can
tell, y
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:24:16AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >tell, you do _not_ want to use RAID 5 with Veritas.
> Out of curiosity, why?
What I keep hearing through various back channels is that, if you pay
folks from Veritas to look at your installation, and they see RAID 5,
they suggest y
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 11:14, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:26:14PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >
> > My experience has been that once you get past 6 disks, RAID5 is faster
> > than RAID1+0.
>
> Also depends on your filesystem and volume manager. As near as I can
> tell,
--On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:14:34 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:26:14PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
My experience has been that once you get past 6 disks, RAID5 is faster
than RAID1+0.
Also depends on your filesystem and volume manager. As
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:26:14PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
>
> My experience has been that once you get past 6 disks, RAID5 is faster
> than RAID1+0.
Also depends on your filesystem and volume manager. As near as I can
tell, you do _not_ want to use RAID 5 with Veritas.
A
--
Andrew
> "MC" == Matt Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MC> And concurrency is very high, because it's a web app, and each
MC> httpd has one connection to PG, and there can be hundreds of
MC> active httpd processes. Some kind of connection pooling scheme
MC> might be in order when there are that man
> "AS" == Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AS> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 12:05:03AM -0700, William Yu wrote:
>> We should see a boost when we move to 64-bit Linux and hopefully another
>> one when NUMA for Linux is production-stable.
AS> According to the people who've worked with SG
12 matches
Mail list logo
