> as you see, explain analyze says it will execute in 175.952ms and
> because of network transfer of data executing this from pgadmin in
> another machine it runs for 17s... but from time to time pgFouine is
> shown upto 345.11 sec
Well, 86000 rows is not enough to give PostgreSQL a headache, even
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Nimesh Satam wrote:
> We are trying to implement slony as a replication tool for one of our
> database. The Insert and updates have increased by approximately double
> making some of our important script slow.
What version of PostgreSQL are you running and on what
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Jaime Casanova
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> is the exact query... i think it will be removed later today because
>>> is a bad query anyway... but my fear is that something like happens
>>> even with good ones...
>>>
>>> maybe
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> is the exact query... i think it will be removed later today because
>> is a bad query anyway... but my fear is that something like happens
>> even with good ones...
>>
>> maybe chekpoints could be the problem?
>> i have 8.3.5 and condigured
> is the exact query... i think it will be removed later today because
> is a bad query anyway... but my fear is that something like happens
> even with good ones...
>
> maybe chekpoints could be the problem?
> i have 8.3.5 and condigured checkpoint_timeout in 15 minutes,
> chekpoint_segments 6 and
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Jaime Casanova
> wrote:
>> we have a some bad queries (developers are working on that), some of
>> them run in 17 secs and that is the average but when analyzing logs i
>> found that from time to time some of t
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> we have a some bad queries (developers are working on that), some of
>> them run in 17 secs and that is the average but when analyzing logs i
>> found that from time to time some of them took upto 3 mins (the same
>> q
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Jaime Casanova
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we have a some bad queries (developers are working on that), some of
> them run in 17 secs and that is the average but when analyzing logs i
> found that from time to time some of them took upto 3 mins (the same
> query that normally
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Jaime Casanova
wrote:
> we have a some bad queries (developers are working on that), some of
> them run in 17 secs and that is the average but when analyzing logs i
> found that from time to time some of them took upto 3 mins (the same
> query that normally runs in
