> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
[domain -> base type conversion interfering with optimization]
Tom> You seem to be laboring under the delusion that this is
Tom> considered a bug.
Of course it's a bug, or at least a missing feature - there is no
justification for putting performance deathtrap
and frankly I still (and few others) think it is a defect, for domain
with some base type should be treated as such. It is after all treated
that way when you create index.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://w
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> You seem to be laboring under the delusion that this is considered a
> bug. It's a necessary semantic restriction, because the pushed-down
> expression could mean different things when applied to different
> data types.
Very true Tom, still I w
=?UTF-8?Q?Grzegorz_Ja=C5=9Bkiewicz?= writes:
> with a little help on Irc from Andrew (RhodiumToad) I got it 'fixed',
> but I know this is just a hack:
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that this is considered a
bug. It's a necessary semantic restriction, because the pushed-down
expressi
so Tom,
with a little help on Irc from Andrew (RhodiumToad) I got it 'fixed',
but I know this is just a hack:
Index: src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c,v
retrieving
>>> effective_cache_size
>>
>> This is just a hint to tell the planner how much cache will generally be
>> available.
>
> ok, but available for what?
The documentation on these parameters is really very good.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/runtime-config-query.html
http://www.post
Thomas Finneid wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Sat, 2009-02-07 at 01:52 +0100, Thomas Finneid wrote:
>>
effective_cache_size
>>
This is just a hint to tell the planner how much cache will generally be
available.
ok, but available for what?
for storing the data/tables/rows in memory so it
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The UNION arms have to all be the same data type in order to have
> restrictions pushed down through the UNION. You did not show us
> the table declarations for your first example, but I bet that updateid
> isn't the same type in both. (And yes,
that helped, thanks a lot Tom.
Looks like additional thing on 'pet peeves' list (from -general).
:P
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Sat, 2009-02-07 at 01:52 +0100, Thomas Finneid wrote:
>>
effective_cache_size
>>
This is just a hint to tell the planner how much cache will generally be
available.
ok, but available for what?
The number should be reflective of your shared buffers +
available op
10 matches
Mail list logo
