On 09/06/2013 12:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Brian Fehrle writes:
On 09/05/2013 05:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I rather doubt that the now-explicit-instead-of-implicit casts have much
to do with that. It seems more likely that you forgot to re-ANALYZE in
the new database, or there are some different
On 09/05/2013 05:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Brian Fehrle writes:
I have a view, that when created with our create statement works
wonderfully, a query on the view with a standard where clause that
narrows the result to a single row performs in under a single ms.
However, when we export this view
Apologies, forgot to include Postgres version 9.1.9
- Brian F
On 09/05/2013 04:45 PM, Brian Fehrle wrote:
Hi All,
I have a view, that when created with our create statement works
wonderfully, a query on the view with a standard where clause that
narrows the result to a single row performs
Hi All,
I have a view, that when created with our create statement works
wonderfully, a query on the view with a standard where clause that
narrows the result to a single row performs in under a single ms.
However, when we export this view and re-import it (dump and restore of
the database, w
Hi all (Hopefully this is the correct mailing list for this).
I'm working on performance tuning a host of queries on PostgreSQL 9.2
from an application, each query having its own issues and fixes, however
from what I understand this application runs the exact same queries on
the exact same dat
On 07/12/2013 04:43 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
As for the counts on the tables:
table1 3,653,472
table2 2,191,314
table325,676,589
I think it's safe to assume right now that any resulting joins are not
one-to-one
Hmmm? How is doing a subselect in the SELECT clause even working, then?
On 07/11/2013 06:46 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Brian,
3. I'm trying to eliminate the union, however I have two problems.
A) I can't figure out how to have an 'or' clause in a single join that
would fetch all the correct rows. If I just do:
LEFT OUTER JOIN table2 t2 ON (t2.real_id = t.id OR t2.real_
Hi All,
(basic info)
PostgreSQL 9.2.4
64 bit Linux host
4GB shared_buffers with 14GB system memory, dedicated database VM
10MB work_mem
I have a query that takes over 6 minutes to complete, and it's due
mainly to the two sorting operations being done on this query. The data
it is returning it
Claudio Freire wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Brian Fehrle
wrote:
This morning, during our nightly backup process (where we grab a
copy of the data directory), we started having this same issue.
The main thing that I see in all of these is a high disk wait on
the system. When we ar
Hi all,
OS: Linux 64 bit 2.6.32
PostgreSQL 9.0.5 installed from Ubuntu packages.
8 CPU cores
64 GB system memory
Database cluster is on raid 10 direct attached drive, using a HP p800
controller card.
I have a system that has been having occasional performance hits, where
the load on the syst
m tomorrow, as well as looking at using an enum type.
- Brian F
On 11/02/2011 05:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Brian Fehrle writes:
I've got a query that I need to squeeze as much speed out of as I can.
Hmm ... are you really sure this is being run with work_mem = 50MB?
The hash join is getting
Hi all,
I've got a query that I need to squeeze as much speed out of as I can.
When I execute this query, the average time it takes is about 190 ms. I
increased my work_mem from 1 MB to 50MB and it decreased the timing down
to an average of 170 ms, but that's still not fast enough. This query
12 matches
Mail list logo
