Tom,
> event_date <= 'end-date' AND (event_date + duration) >= 'start-date'
> AND event_date >= 'start-date' - 'max-duration'
Great suggestion! We're down to 160ms, from about 370ms with my subselect
workaround. Thanks!
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---
>Jeff Boes writes
> # explain select link_id from links l join clm_tmp_links t on
> (fn_urlrev(l.path_base) = t.rev_path_base);
> executes in 59.8 seconds!
> Now the odd part: if I change the query to this:
>
> # explain analyze select link_id from links l join clm_tmp_links t on
> (fn_urlrev(l
Saleem Burhani Baloch kirjutas N, 19.02.2004 kell 11:01:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks every one for helping me. I have upgraded to 7.4.1 on
> redhat 8 ( rh 9 require a lot of lib's) and set the configuration
> sent by Chris. Now the query results in 6.3 sec waooo. I m thinking
> that why the 7.1 process ag
Josh Berkus wrote:
Anjan,
Has anyone designed/implemented postgresql server on storage networks?
Yes, Zapatec.com runs their stuff this way. Probably others as well.
Are there any design considerations?
I don't know. Probably.
Are there any benchmarks for storage products
Tom,
> Uh, why do you need the child table?
Because there's linked information which needs to be kept by day for multi-day
events. Also, it makes calendar reports easier, where one wants each day of
a multi-day event to appear on each day of the calendar.
>Seems like the correct incantatio
Anjan,
> Has anyone designed/implemented postgresql server on storage networks?
Yes, Zapatec.com runs their stuff this way. Probably others as well.
> Are there any design considerations?
I don't know. Probably.
> Are there any benchmarks for storage products (HBAs, Switches, Storage
> Arra
Title: Message
Hello,
Has anyone
designed/implemented postgresql server on storage networks?
Are there any design
considerations?
Are there any
benchmarks for storage products (HBAs, Switches, Storage
Arrays)?
Any recommendation
on the design, resources, references, keeping PG in mi
> Thanks every one for helping me. I have upgraded to 7.4.1 on redhat 8 (
> rh 9 require a lot of lib's) and set the configuration sent by Chris.
> Now the query results in 6.3 sec waooo. I m thinking that why the 7.1
> process aggregate slowly. Anyway.
I'm glad we could help you Saleem :)
We kne
On Thursday 19 February 2004 14:31, Saleem Burhani Baloch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks every one for helping me. I have upgraded to 7.4.1 on redhat 8 ( rh
> 9 require a lot of lib's) and set the configuration sent by Chris. Now the
> query results in 6.3 sec waooo. I m thinking that why the 7.1 process
Hi,
Thanks every one for helping me. I have upgraded to 7.4.1 on redhat 8 ( rh 9 require a
lot of lib's) and set the configuration sent by Chris. Now the query results in 6.3
sec waooo. I m thinking that why the 7.1 process aggregate slowly. Anyway.
I still have to go for 2 sec result and now I
10 matches
Mail list logo
