"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There have been several times that I have run a SELECT COUNT(*) on an entire
> table on all central machines. On identical hardware, with identical data,
> and equivalent query loads, the PostgreSQL databases have responded with a
> count in 50% to 7
The pgAdmin query tool is known to give an answer about 5x the real
answer - don't believe it!
ryan groth wrote:
Hmm, it came from the timer on the pgadmin III sql query tool. I guess
the 1,000ms includes the round-trip? See the wierd thing is that
mysqlserver is running default configuration o
ryan groth wrote:
I am issing a query like this:
SELECT *
FROM users users
LEFT JOIN phorum_users_base ON users.uid = phorum_users_base.user_id
LEFT JOIN useraux ON useraux.uid = users.uid;
I'm not sure if postgres would rewrite your query to do the joins
properly, though I guess so
"997+3522 ms". Am I reading these numbers wrong? Are these numbers
reflective of application performance? Is there an optimization I am
missing?
It also reflects the time it takes to pgadmin to insert the results into
its GUI...
If you want to get an approximation of the time the server
I just wanted to thank everyone for your input on my question. You've
given me a lot of tools to solve my problem here.
Orion
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
I am running a query that joins against several large tables (~5 million
rows each). The query takes an exteremely long time to run, and the
explain output is a bit beyond my level of understanding. It is an
auto-generated query, so the aliases are fairly ugly. I can clean them
up (rename them)
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 12:11, ryan groth wrote:
> Does this work:
>
> "Merge Left Join (cost=0.00..2656.36 rows=6528 width=1522) (actual
> time=0.057..123.659 rows=6528 loops=1)"
> " Merge Cond: ("outer".uid = "inner".uid)"
> " -> Merge Left Join (cost=0.00..1693.09 rows=6528 width=1264)
> (ac
Hmm, it came from the timer on the pgadmin III sql query tool. I guess
the 1,000ms includes the round-trip? See the wierd thing is that
mysqlserver is running default configuration on a virtual machine
(P3/1.3GHZ conf'd for 128mb ram) over a 100m/b ethernet connection.
Postgres is running on a real
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, ryan groth wrote:
> Does this work:
>
> "Merge Left Join (cost=0.00..2656.36 rows=6528 width=1522) (actual
> time=0.057..123.659 rows=6528 loops=1)"
> " Merge Cond: ("outer".uid = "inner".uid)"
> " -> Merge Left Join (cost=0.00..1693.09 rows=6528 width=1264)
> (actual tim
workmem is set to the default, increasing it decreases performance.
> Does this work:
>
> "Merge Left Join (cost=0.00..2656.36 rows=6528 width=1522) (actual
> time=0.057..123.659 rows=6528 loops=1)"
> " Merge Cond: ("outer".uid = "inner".uid)"
> " -> Merge Left Join (cost=0.00..1693.09 rows
Does this work:
"Merge Left Join (cost=0.00..2656.36 rows=6528 width=1522) (actual
time=0.057..123.659 rows=6528 loops=1)"
" Merge Cond: ("outer".uid = "inner".uid)"
" -> Merge Left Join (cost=0.00..1693.09 rows=6528 width=1264)
(actual time=0.030..58.876 rows=6528 loops=1)"
"Merge Co
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:26:47PM -0500, ryan groth wrote:
> Postgres Explain
We need to see EXPLAIN ANALYZE results here.
What's your work_mem set to?
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you ch
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are replicating data from 72 source databases, each with the
> official copy of a subset of the data, to four identical consolidated
> databases, spread to separate locations, to serve our web site and other
> organization-wide needs. Currently, tw
I am issing a query like this:
SELECT *
FROM users users
LEFT JOIN phorum_users_base ON users.uid = phorum_users_base.user_id
LEFT JOIN useraux ON useraux.uid = users.uid;
The joins are all on the PKs of the tables. It takes 1000ms to run on
postgres. The identical mysql version runs in 2
I know I am sticking my nose in an area here that I have not been
involved in but
this issue is important to me.
Chethana I have a couple of questions based on what you said you are
using as a
platform. see below :
On Feb 22, 2006, at 8:22 AM, Richard Huxton wrote:
Chethana, Rao (IE10) wro
Kevin,
On 2/22/06 8:57 AM, "Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hesitate to raise this issue again, but I've noticed something which I
> thought might be worth mentioning. I've never thought the performance
> of count(*) on a table was a significant issue, but I'm prepared to say
> th
I hesitate to raise this issue again, but I've noticed something which I
thought might be worth mentioning. I've never thought the performance
of count(*) on a table was a significant issue, but I'm prepared to say
that -- for me, at least -- it is officially and totally a NON-issue.
We are repli
On Feb 22, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Chethana, Rao (IE10) wrote:It is rich in features but slow in performance.No, it is fast and feature-rich. But you have to tune it for your specific needs; the default configuration is not ideal for large DBs.
Hi,Can this technique work with case insensitive ILIKE?It didn't seem to use the index when I used ILIKE instead of LIKE.Thanks, Brendan Duddridge | CTO | 403-277-5591 x24 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ClickSpace Interactive Inc. Suite L1
Richard Huxton writes:
> George Woodring wrote:
>> FROM
>> settop_billing
>> LEFT OUTER JOIN
>> (dhct JOIN dhct_davic USING(mac))
>> USING
>> (mac)
>> WHERE
>> region='GTown1E' AND node='1E012'
> With 7.4 I seem to remember that explicit JOI
Chethana, Rao (IE10) wrote:
Hello!
Thank you for responding quickly. I really need ur help.
Please make sure you cc: the list - I don't read this inbox regularly.
Sir, here r the answers for ur questions, please do tell me what to do
next(regarding increasing performance of postgresql), so
try this.
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html
http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList
Performance depends on the postgresql.conf parameters apart from the hardware details.
On 2/22/06, Chethana, Rao (IE10) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello!
This is Chethana. I
Chethana, Rao (IE10) wrote:
This is Chethana. I need to know how to improve the performance of
postgresql.It is rich in features but slow in performance.
You'll need to provide some details first.
How are you using PostgreSQL?
How many concurrent users?
Mostly updates or small selects or
Hello!
This is Chethana. I need to know how to improve the
performance of postgresql. It is rich in features but slow in performance.
Pls do reply back ASAP.
Thank you,
Chethana.
George Woodring wrote:
explain analyze SELECT column1, column2, column3, column4, column5,
column6, column7, column8 FROM (SELECT CASE status WHEN 0 THEN 0 WHEN 1
THEN 1 ELSE -1 END AS column1, mac AS column2, account AS column3,
number || ' ' || address AS column4, 'qmod' || '.' || 'dmod' AS c
25 matches
Mail list logo
