SECOND ATTEMPT AT POST. Web mailer appears to have
eaten first one. I apologize in advance if anyone gets two
versions of this post.
=r
>From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sep 26, 2005 9:42 PM
>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?
>
>So far, you've blithely assumed th
Ron Peacetree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's start by assuming that an element is <= in size to a cache line and a
> node fits into L1 DCache. [ much else snipped ]
So far, you've blithely assumed that you know the size of a cache line,
the sizes of L1 and L2 cache, and that you are working
>From: Dann Corbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sep 26, 2005 5:13 PM
>To: Ron Peacetree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
> pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?
>
>I think that the btrees are going to be O(n*log(n)) in cons
Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the field is immaterial in terms of the size of the table, then it
> won't help materially.
> If you were going to index on it, however, THAT would make it
> significant for indices involving the "genre" column. Fitting more
> tuples into each page is
""Ahmad Fajar"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> Select ids, keywords from dict where keywords='blabla' ('blabla' is a
> single
> word);
>
> The table have 200 million rows, I have index the keywords field. On the
> first time my query seem to slow to get the result, about 15-60 sec to get
> the res
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Announce") writes:
> I KNOW that I am not going to have anywhere near 32,000+ different
> genres in my genre table so why use int4? Would that squeeze a few
> more milliseconds of performance out of a LARGE song table query
> with a genre lookup?
If the field is immaterial in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Announce") writes:
> I KNOW that I am not going to have anywhere near 32,000+ different
> genres in my genre table so why use int4? Would that squeeze a few
> more milliseconds of performance out of a LARGE song table query
> with a genre lookup?
By the way, I see a lot of que
On Mon, 2005-26-09 at 12:54 -0500, Announce wrote:
> Is there an performance benefit to using int2 (instead of int4) in cases
> where i know i will be well within its numeric range?
int2 uses slightly less storage space (2 bytes rather than 4). Depending
on alignment and padding requirements, as w
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 12:54:05PM -0500, Announce wrote:
> Is there an performance benefit to using int2 (instead of int4) in cases
> where i know i will be well within its numeric range? I want to conserve
> storage space and gain speed anywhere i can, but i know some apps simply end
> up casting
"Cristian Prieto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> mydb=# explain analyze select locid from geoip_block where
> '216.230.158.50'::inet between start_block and end_block;
> As you see it still using a sequential scan in the table and ignores the
> index, any other suggestion?
That two-column index is
>From: Ron Peacetree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sep 24, 2005 6:30 AM
>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Releasing memory during External sorting?
>
>... the amount of IO done is the most
>important of the things that you should be optimizing for in
>choosing an external sorting algorithm.
>
>
>
>Si
"Gurpreet Aulakh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While testing 8.1, I found that simple joins take longer in 8.1 than 8.0.
> For example the sub query
> SELECT doc.doc_documentid FROM document AS doc LEFT JOIN folder_document ON
> doc.doc_documentid = folder_document.doc_documentId LEFT JOIN documen
mydb=# explain analyze select locid from geoip_block where
'216.230.158.50'::inet between start_block and end_block;
QUERY PLAN
---
Is there an performance benefit to using int2 (instead of int4) in cases
where i know i will be well within its numeric range? I want to conserve
storage space and gain speed anywhere i can, but i know some apps simply end
up casting 2byte data to 4byte (like Java int/short).
These int2 values wil
Thanks for your help Tom.
While testing 8.1, I found that simple joins take longer in 8.1 than 8.0.
For example the sub query
SELECT doc.doc_documentid FROM document AS doc LEFT JOIN folder_document ON
doc.doc_documentid = folder_document.doc_documentId LEFT JOIN document as
root ON doc.doc_inter
While I understand being economical, at some point one crosses the line
to being penny wise and pound foolish.
How much is the data on this server going to be worth?
How much much will it cost you to recover or restore it (assuming that
is even possible if you lose it)?
If your data is worth noth
At 20:17 05/09/23, K C Lau wrote:
At 19:15 05/09/23, Simon Riggs wrote:
select distinct on (PlayerID) PlayerID,AtDate from Player a
where PlayerID='0' order by PlayerId, AtDate Desc;
Does that work for you?
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
esdt=> explain analyze select distinct on (PlayerID) Pl
17 matches
Mail list logo
