On 3/1/07, Rob Schall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are 4 entries (wanted to make the playing field level for this
test). There are 2 with true for istf and 2 with false.
Then the difference here has to do with using orignum vs destnum as the join
criteria. There must be more intersection
On 1/31/07, Sidar López Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Executing these query take:
Query returned successfully: 290 rows affected, 2542387 ms execution time.
I think that's too many time
I would post the plans that you are getting, otherwise just mentioning the
execution time is not very hel
On 1/30/07, Sidar López Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
query: Delete From ceroriesgo.salarios Where numero_patrono Not In (Select
numero_patrono From ceroriesgo.patronos)
Seq Scan on salarios (cost=51021.78..298803854359.95 rows=14240077
width=6)
Filter: (NOT (subplan))
SubPlan
-> Ma
On 1/30/07, Luke Lonergan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not that it helps Igor, but we've implemented single pass sort/unique,
grouping and limit optimizations and it speeds things up to a single
seqscan
over the data, from 2-5 times faster than a typical external sort.
Was that integrated back
On 1/30/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> explain analyze select distinct a, b from tbl
>
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE output is:
>
> Unique (cost=500327.32..525646.88 rows=1848 width=6) (actual
> time=52719.868..56126.356 rows=5390 loops=1)
> -> Sort (cost=500327.32..508767.17 rows=337
On 1/23/07, Tobias Brox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ralph Kimball seems to be some kind of guru on data warehousing, and
in his books he's strongly recommending to have a date dimension -
simply a table describing all dates in the system, and having
I would tend to agree with this line of thou
On 1/17/07, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, I will look into this and see if I can figure out this
average value. This may be a valid idea, and I'll look some more at it.
It must be, Oracle sells it pretty heavily as a data warehousing feature
;). Oracle calls it a materia
On 1/17/07, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, each night we load data from a legacy cobol system into the SQL
system and then we summarize that data to make the reports faster. This
load process is intensely insert/update driven but also has a hefty
amount of selects as well. This load
On 1/17/07, Jeremy Haile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe - I tried running the same query for an older time range that is
less likely to be cached. The index scan took longer than my previous
example, but still only took 16 seconds, compared to the 87 seconds
required to seqscan the table. Wh
On 1/16/07, Jeremy Haile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The table is heavily inserted and deleted from. Recently I had done a
very large delete.
That's what I suspected.
Here is the results of the query you sent me: (sorry it's hard to read)
"transaction_date";0;8;172593;-0.194848
Just curi
On 1/16/07, Jeremy Haile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Even if unrelated, do you think disk fragmentation would have negative
effects? Is it worth trying to defragment the drive on a regular basis
in Windows?
Out of curiosity, is this table heavily updated or deleted from? Perhaps
there is an
11 matches
Mail list logo
