On Sep 12, 2007, at 9:07 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On 9/12/07, Mikko Partio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
…
Aren't you mixing up REINDEX and CLUSTER?
…
Either one does what a vacuum full did / does, but generally does
it better.
On topic of REINDEX / VACUUM FULL versus a CLUSTER / VACUUM ANALY
On Aug 17, 2007, at 5:23 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 10:43:18AM +0200, Frank Schoep wrote:
On Aug 17, 2007, at 9:28 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
(cost=0.00..37612.76 rows=14221 width=48) (actual
time=0.125..13.686 rows=2000 loops=1)
[snip]
I'm not an expe
On Aug 17, 2007, at 9:28 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
…
try to change the query to:
SELECT * FROM movies WHERE letter = 'T' ORDER BY letter ASC, name
ASC LIMIT 100
OFFSET 1900;
Thanks for the suggestion, however executing this query takes even
longer regardless of work_mem. The que
On Aug 16, 2007, at 7:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
…
Why is the sort step so slow? Sorting a mere 13k rows shouldn't take
very long. Maybe you are overrunning work_mem and it's falling back
to a disk sort ... what is work_mem set to?
By default work_mem is set to "1024". Increasing the value to "819
at does not seem elegant, I'd rather have the query planner
make better decisions
- I could try and test what 8.2 does if someone expects the results
to be different, but I can't yet upgrade my production servers to 8.2
- am I just running into a corner case which falls outside of the
pl
