>>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2007 at 6:53 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Shawn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> vacuum verbose analyze shawns_data;
> INFO: vacuuming "public.shawns_data"
> INFO: scanned index "shawns_data_pkey" to remove 21444 row versions
> DETAIL: CPU 0.24s/0.12u sec elapsed 8.35 sec
On 8/31/07, Brennan, Sean (IMS) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I was looking for opinions on performance for a design involving schemas. We
> have a 3-tier system with a lot of hand-written SQL in our Java-based server,
> but we want to start limiting the data that different users can access
Shawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Did you ever capture the output of VACUUM VERBOSE against this table
> vacuum verbose analyze shawns_data;
> ...
> INFO: index "shawns_data_pkey" now contains 15445 row versions in
> 35230 pages
[ and comparably b
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:07:41 -0500
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2007 at 11:15 AM, in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Shawn
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 10:49:09 -0500 "Kevin Grittner"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >>> On Sat,
>>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2007 at 11:57 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Shawn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also it runs a lot faster by itself
Given the context of the run, there is a possibility that a checkpoint tends
to fall at this point in the script because you're filling your WAL files.
Ther
>>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2007 at 11:15 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Shawn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 10:49:09 -0500 "Kevin Grittner"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >>> On Sat, Sep 1, 2007 at 12:29 PM, in message
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Shawn
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:00:10 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The query just ran and here is the basic output:
>
> > UPDATE 15445
> > Time: 22121.141 ms
>
> > and
>
> > explain ANALYZE update shawns_data set alias = null;
> >
Thanks Kevin,
This one initially added about 10sec to the run but I added a HASH
index on the alias field and its now about 5 sec average runtime, a net
improvement.
Shawn
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 10:49:09 -0500 "Kevin Grittner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Sep 1, 2007 at 12:29 PM, in
