Hi Robert,
Thanks much for your valuable inputs
This spaces and tabs problem is killing me in a way, it is pretty
cumbersome to say the least
Regards,
Suvankar Roy
"Robert Mah"
Sent by: Robert Mah
08/02/2009 10:52 PM
To
"'Suvankar Roy'" ,
cc
S
TARGET: STDOUT
I have learnt that unnecessary TABs can the cause of this, so trying to
overcome that, hopefully the problem will subside then
Regards,
Suvankar Roy
Richard Huxton
08/03/2009 02:55 PM
To
Suvankar Roy
cc
pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject
Re: [PERFORM]
ents doc, keywords kw, term_match tm
WHERE doc.doc_id = tm.doc_id
AND kw.keyword_id = tm.keyword_id
AND tm.count > 0
EXECUTE:
- RUN:
SOURCE: final_output
TARGET:
satisfactory or at least comparable,
like-
select distinct so_no, serial_no from observation_all;
in postgres it takes - 1404.238 ms
in gp it takes - 1217.283 ms
Regards,
Suvankar Roy
Alex Goncharov
07/15/2009 06:07 PM
Please respond to
Alex Goncharov
To
Suvankar Roy
cc
pgsql-performance
wrong here.
Regards,
Suvankar Roy
Scott Marlowe
07/15/2009 03:00 PM
To
Suvankar Roy
cc
pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject
Re: [PERFORM] Performance comparison between Postgres and Greenplum
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Suvankar Roy
wrote:
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> Th
-
PostgreSQL 8.3.7, compiled by Visual C++ build 1400
(1 row)
Regards,
Suvankar Roy
Tata Consultancy Services
Ph:- +91 33 66367352
Cell:- +91 9434666898
Scott Marlowe
07/15/2009 09:10 AM
To
Suvankar Roy
cc
pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject
Re
* from observation_all order by so_no, serial_no;
I believe that execution time in greenplum should be less compared to
postgres. Can anybody throw some light, it would be of great help.
Regards,
Suvankar Roy
=-=-=
Notice: The information contained in this e-mail
message and
