Hi
Thanks for the response. I reran the query but first ran the statement you
provided and set working mem to 2gb. It ended up taking 133s and group
aggregate was still used
Here are the values you asked for:
# - Planner Method Configuration -
#enable_bitmapscan = on
#enable_hashagg = on
#enab
On 26 Srpen 2013, 15:02, Adam Ma'ruf wrote:
> Sure
>
> I just upgraded to 9.2.4. The query is:
> SELECTquebec_four
> , sierra
> , SUM(dollaramount) as dollaramount
> FROM alpha_quebec_echo
> GROUP BY quebec_four
> , sierra
>
> alpha_quebec_echo ha
Sure
I just upgraded to 9.2.4. The query is:
SELECTquebec_four
, sierra
, SUM(dollaramount) as dollaramount
FROM alpha_quebec_echo
GROUP BY quebec_four
, sierra
alpha_quebec_echo has 5,409,743 rows and 39 columns. Quebec_four and
sierra are bot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello
We have a SQL statement that with 9.1 takes ca 4000ms to finnish and
with 9.2 over 22000ms.
The explain analyze information is here:
With 9.1.:
http://explain.depesz.com/s/5ou
With 9.2
http://explain.depesz.com/s/d4vU
The SQL statement is:
Hello,
Stable and immutable functions do not improve performance when used within the
GROUP BY clause.
Here, the function will be called for each row.
To avoid it, I can replace the funtion by its arguments within GROUP BY.
Maybe this hint is worth a note within the documentation on Function Vo
Hi ,
Thanks for the inputs and direction.With the help of the support table i
narrowed down to windows 2008 and 2003 servers.32 bit postgres 9.2.4 was very
slow on windows 2008 (64 bit ), on running postgres 9.2.4 64 bit the response
time was similar to what i used to get on windows 7. I did no
