On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:05 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 21 September 2017 at 04:15, Mike Broers wrote:
> > Ultimately I think this is just highlighting the need in my environment
> to
> > set random_page_cost lower (we are on an SSD SAN anyway..), but I dont
> think
> &
andom_page_cost lower (we are on an SSD SAN anyway..), but I dont
think I have a satisfactory reason by the row estimates are so bad in the
QA planner and why it doesnt use that partition index there.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Mike Broers wrote:
> That makes a lot of sense, thanks for
exists (select 1 from t_sap where e.landing_id = t_sap.landing_id)) as
rankings;
Based on the difference in row estimate I am attempting an analyze with a
higher default_statistic_target (currently 100) to see if that helps.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mike Broers wri
Buckets: 1024 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 10kB
│
│ -> HashAggregate (cost=41.88..43.88 rows=200
width=4) (actual time=0.054..0.067 rows=45 loops=1)
│
│ Group Key: t_sap.landing_id
│
│ -> Seq Sca
2017 at 08:28, Mike Broers wrote:
> > I have a query of a partitioned table that uses the partition index in
> > production but uses sequence scans in qa. The only major difference I
> can
> > tell is the partitions are much smaller in qa. In production the
> partitions
Postgres 9.5
I have a query of a partitioned table that uses the partition index in
production but uses sequence scans in qa. The only major difference I can
tell is the partitions are much smaller in qa. In production the
partitions range in size from around 25 million rows to around 60 million
it may become a
more frequent ad-hoc need so if there is something else I can do it would
be appreciated.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mike Broers writes:
> > Hello, I am curious about the performance of queries against a master
> table
> > that seem to do
plan by using a subquery on the indexed
partition and using those results to scan for the unindexed value.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Mike Broers wrote:
> Thanks for your response - Is 'selectively choosing what partition'
> different than utilizing each partitions index wh
uld help, but its just my wish.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Ganesh Kannan
>
>
>
> ------
> *From:* pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org postgresql.org> on behalf of Mike Broers
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:53 PM
> *To:* pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Hello, I am curious about the performance of queries against a master table
that seem to do seq scans on each child table. When the same query is
issued at a partition directly it uses the partition index and is very
fast.
The partition constraint is in the query criteria. We have non overlappin
After bumping up work_mem from 12MB to 25MB that last materialize is indeed
hashing and this cut the query time by about 60%. Thanks, this was very
helpful and gives me something else to look for when troubleshooting
explains.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Mike Broers wrote:
> Tha
Thanks, very informative! I'll experiment with work_mem settings and report
back.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mike Broers writes:
> > I had a query that was filtering with a wildcard search of a text field
> for
> > %SUCCESS%. The query took
I had a query that was filtering with a wildcard search of a text field for
%SUCCESS%. The query took about 5 seconds and was running often so I wanted
to improve it. I suggested that the engineers include a new boolean column
for successful status. They implemented the requested field, but the q
.
this is a good start, if there are any other suggestions please let me know
- is there any query to check estimated time remaining on long running
transactions?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mike Broers writes:
> > I am in the process of implementing cascade
I originally posted this on admin, but it was suggested to post it to
performance so here goes -
I am in the process of implementing cascade on delete constraints
retroactively on rather large tables so I can cleanly remove deprecated
data. The problem is recreating some foreign key constraints o
Thanks Robert, this is what I was looking for. I will try these suggestions
and follow up if any of them are the silver bullet.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Mike Broers wrote:
> > Thanks for the assistance.
> > Here is an
, table
Try
order by created_at+0
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Mike Broers wrote:
> Thanks for the assistance.
>
> Here is an explain analyze of the query with the problem limit:
>
> production=# explain analyze select * from landing_page.messages where
> ((messages.topi
, this particular table is about 1.6GB
and growing. Currently there are jobs that query from this table every
minute.
Thanks again
Mike
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Mike Broers wrote:
>
> > Hello performance, I need help explaining the performance of
Hello performance, I need help explaining the performance of a particular
query:
select * from messages where ((messages.topic = E'/x') AND
(messages.processed = 'f')) ORDER BY messages.created_at ASC limit 10;
Table Structure:
Column |Type |
Modifiers
+
19 matches
Mail list logo
