On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
> odd: I was pondering Claudio's point about maintenance of hash indexes
> vs btree and decided to do some more tests. Something very strange is
> happening: I decided to compare 'update v set x=x+1', historically
> one of postgres's weake
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Peter Geoghegan
> wrote:
>> On 14 September 2011 00:04, Stefan Keller wrote:
>>> Has this been verified on a recent release? I can't believe that hash
>>> performs so bad over all these points. Theory tells me
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Stefan Keller wrote:
> 2011/9/14 Tom Lane writes:
>> (...) I think that
>> the current state of affairs is still what depesz said, namely that
>> there might be cases where they'd be a win to use, except the lack of
>> WAL support is a killer. I imagine somebody
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 14 September 2011 00:04, Stefan Keller wrote:
>> Has this been verified on a recent release? I can't believe that hash
>> performs so bad over all these points. Theory tells me otherwise and
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table se
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Anthony Presley wrote:
> In relation to my previous thread (about SW RAID vs. HW RAID on a P400), I
> was able to narrow down the filesystem speed and in general, our new system
> (running PG 9.1) is about 3x - 5x faster on the IO.
> In looking at the query plans i
2011/9/17 Tomas Vondra wrote:
(...)
> We've been asked by a local university for PostgreSQL-related topics of
> theses and seminary works
I'm also interested in such proposals or ideas!
Here's some list of topics:
* Adding WAL-support to hash indexes in PostgreSQL (see ex-topic)
* Time in Postgr
