2016-08-26 22:26 GMT+02:00 Mike Sofen :
>
>
> *From:* pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-
> ow...@postgresql.org] *On Behalf Of *Tommi K
> *Sent:* Friday, August 26, 2016 7:25 AM
> *To:* Craig James
> *Cc:* andreas kretschmer ;
> pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> *S
On 8/26/16 3:26 PM, Mike Sofen wrote:
Is there way to keep query time constant as the database size grows.
No. More data == more time. Unless you find a way to break the laws of
physics.
Should I use partitioning or partial indexes?
Neither technique is a magic bullet. I doubt either woul
From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tommi K
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 7:25 AM
To: Craig James
Cc: andreas kretschmer ;
pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Slow query with big tables
Ok, sorry tha
Ok, sorry that I did not add the original message. I thought that it would
be automatically added to the message thread.
Here is the question again:
Is there way to keep query time constant as the database size grows. Should
I use partitioning or partial indexes?
Thanks,
Tommi Kaksonen
> Hell
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Tommi K wrote:
> Hello,
> thanks for the response. I did not get the response to my email even
> though I am subscribed to the pgsql-performance mail list. Let's hope that
> I get the next one :)
>
Please include the email you are replying to when you respond. It
Hello,
thanks for the response. I did not get the response to my email even though
I am subscribed to the pgsql-performance mail list. Let's hope that I get
the next one :)
Increasing work_mem did not have great impact on the performance. But I
will try to update the PostgreSQL version to see if i
