On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:10:06 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You weren't kidding, that really made a difference. its .5 sec now
> > on the run. I think the vacuuming not running for a few weeks is
> > w
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:07:41 -0500
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2007 at 11:15 AM, in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Shawn
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 10:49:09 -0500 "Kevin Grit
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:00:10 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The query just ran and here is the basic output:
>
> > UPDATE 15445
> > Time: 22121.141 ms
>
> > and
>
> &g
Thanks Kevin,
This one initially added about 10sec to the run but I added a HASH
index on the alias field and its now about 5 sec average runtime, a net
improvement.
Shawn
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 10:49:09 -0500 "Kevin Grittner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> On
-
Seq Scan on shawns_data (cost=0.00..465.45 rows=15445 width=480) (actual
time=0.034..67.743 rows=15445 loops=1)
Total runtime: 1865.002 ms
(2 rows)
Shawn
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 13:18:16 -0700
Shawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
. I will
also run a vacuum full analyze on it before the run and have timing on.
Shawn
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:09:54 -0400 Tom Lane
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > update shawns_data set alias = null;
>
> > Alias is a type varcha
simple line takes 35 sec to complete. Other
more complicated deletes and updates, some of the tables in this
database are over 300 million records, take as much time as this
simple query.
My question: Is there a better, ie. faster, way to do this task?
Shawn
---(end of
ld the query planner take advantage of
that?
Thanks,
Shawn
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
