"Luke Lonergan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sure - it's here:
> http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches_hold/msg00381.html
Luke, this is not a patch, and I'm getting pretty dang tired of seeing
you refer to it as one. What this is is a very-selective extract from
Greenplum proprietary code. If you
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Sure - it's here:
http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches_hold/msg00381.html
To clarify - we've fixed this in Greenplum db - the patch as submitted
is (hopefully) a hint about how to fix it in Postgres, rather than a
working patch... as its full of non-postgres functions
On 10/29/07, Campbell, Lance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for all of your help. The problem was that the result_entry table
> had some constraints that pointed to a third table. When I removed
> those constraints the performance was amazing. The update took less
> than seven minutes to exe
Sure - it's here:
http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches_hold/msg00381.html
- Luke
On 10/29/07 6:40 AM, "Gregory Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Luke Lonergan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> And I repeat - 'we fixed that and submitted a patch' - you can find it in the
>> unapplied patches
Thanks for all of your help. The problem was that the result_entry table
had some constraints that pointed to a third table. When I removed
those constraints the performance was amazing. The update took less
than seven minutes to execute. I did not even consider the fact that
constraints to anot
Nimesh Satam wrote:
> Thanks for the information. join_collapse_limit = 1 is already set before
> sending the query plan.
I assume that was a typo, and you really set it to 10 or higher...
> Will a index scan on metrics.netkey help in improving the performance what
> other configuration parameter
"Luke Lonergan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And I repeat - 'we fixed that and submitted a patch' - you can find it in the
> unapplied patches queue.
I can't find this. Can you point me towards it?
Thanks
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask about Ente
Heikki,
Thanks for the information. join_collapse_limit = 1 is already set before
sending the query plan.
Will a index scan on metrics.netkey help in improving the performance what
other configuration parameters should we consider while opting for
partition?
Regards,
Nimesh.
On 10/29/07, Heik
Richard Huxton a écrit :
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Hi,
Le lundi 29 octobre 2007, Tom Lane a écrit :
Is there any chance you can apply the one-line
patch shown here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2007-10/msg00374.php
If rebuilding packages is not to your taste, possibly a down-
Nimesh Satam wrote:
> Heikki,
>
>
> Thanks for your reply. Will try to do the changes and rivert back. I had one
> more requirement for partitioning.
>
> I wanted to inherit two different tables for partition. Below is the query
> used to create the table, an crete the inheritance.
>
>
> CREAT
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Hi,
Le lundi 29 octobre 2007, Tom Lane a écrit :
Is there any chance you can apply the one-line
patch shown here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2007-10/msg00374.php
If rebuilding packages is not to your taste, possibly a down-rev to
8.2.4 would be the
Heikki,
Thanks for your reply. Will try to do the changes and rivert back. I had one
more requirement for partitioning.
I wanted to inherit two different tables for partition. Below is the query
used to create the table, an crete the inheritance.
CREATE TABLE metrics_d20070601 (CHECK (sqldate
Hi,
Le lundi 29 octobre 2007, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Is there any chance you can apply the one-line
> patch shown here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2007-10/msg00374.php
>
> If rebuilding packages is not to your taste, possibly a down-rev to
> 8.2.4 would be the easiest solution
13 matches
Mail list logo