[PERFORM] Postgres Dump - Creating index never stops

ows that the autovacuum task is running (almost) endless... 2017-07-12 18:05:50.822 CEST [19586] hans@pixabay LOG: duration: 1594.319 ms statement: CREATE INDEX photos_download_photo_id ON photos_download USING btree (photo_id); 2017-07-12 18:05:52.340 CEST [19586] hans@pixabay LOG: durat

[PERFORM] Postgres uses too much RAM

= 1GB work_mem = 8MB checkpoint_segments = 32 checkpoint_timeout = 10min checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9 checkpoint_warning = 30s constraint_exclusion = off Thanks, Hans <http://www.maps-for-free.com/>

[PERFORM] Restoring Postgres Dump is very slow with Ubuntu 16.04

) and should autovaccum be turned on again after restoring the dump? Does autovaccum slow down other Postgres queries? Thanks for any help, Hans PS: My last post "Postgres 9.5 / 9.6: Restoring PG 9.4 dump is very very slow" from yesterday (2017-04-14 23.30:10) was not correct. Sorry

[PERFORM] Postgres 9.5 / 9.6: Restoring PG 9.4 dump is very very slow

9.5./9.6! Thanks, Hans <http://www.maps-for-free.com/>

Re: [PERFORM] batch update query performance

ngle value. We could use two tables (one with records from old cycles, one with records from the new cycle) and a view. But that means copying all records from the "new" to the "older" table in each cycle. Kind regards, Hans Drexler -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailin

[PERFORM] Batch update query performance

then needs to update all 15 indexes to make them point to the new rows. There does not seem to be a way to avoid that. Question: - Is our hypothesis correct? - Can the forum please advise us on possible ways to make the query faster? Any insight is much appreciated. regards, Hans Drexler

Re: [PERFORM] ANTI-JOIN needs table, index scan not possible?

Thanks for the answer. so there's no way around this problem? A nice index bitmap merge thing would be super fast. Big table ANTI JOIN queries with only a few results expected, are totally broken, if this is true. This way the query breaks my neck. This is a massive downside of postgres which

[PERFORM] ANTI-JOIN needs table, index scan not possible?

Hi, I need an ANTI-JOIN (not exists SELECT something from table.../ left join table WHERE table.id IS NULL) on the same table. Acutally I have an index to serve the not exists question, but the query planner chooses to to a bitmap heap scan. The table has 100 Mio rows, so doing a heap scan is m

[PERFORM] Substring search using "exists" with a space in the search term

different servers and mostly get the same result (v8.08 and v8.1.11) , when I check the execution plan for either query (space or no space) they are identical. An upgrade to 8.3 fixes this, but I am still curious as to what could cause such bizarre behavior. Thanks Hans

Re: [PERFORM] mysterious difference in speed when combining two queries with OR

loops=1) Filter: ((parent = 45) AND (pbar = 0)) -> Materialize (cost=192.62..269.24 rows=7662 width=0) (actual time=0.014..21.930 rows=7662 loops=2) -> Seq Scan on timecard (co

Re: [PERFORM] mysterious difference in speed when combining two queries with OR

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 09:58:10AM +0200, A. Kretschmer wrote: > am Wed, dem 23.04.2008, um 9:23:07 +0200 mailte Hans Ekbrand folgendes: > > I cannot understand why the following two queries differ so much in > > execution time (almost ten times) > > wild guess: diff

[PERFORM] mysterious difference in speed when combining two queries with OR

should say that this is on postgresql 7.4.16 (debian stable). Can query B be rewritten so that it would execute faster? TIA -- Hans Ekbrand (http://sociologi.cjb.net) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPG Fingerprint: 1408 C8D5 1E7D 4C9C C27E 014F 7C2C 872A 7050 614E signature.asc Description: D

[PERFORM] wal_sync_methods

Hi *,   I am looking for the fastest wal_sync_method (postgres 8, Linux (Redhat) 2.4.29, ext3, SCSI HW-Raid 5).   Any experiences and/or tips?.   Thanks in advance   Stefan

Re: [PERFORM] [HACKERS] [SQL] Materialized View Summary

e cases, but I'm not sure how difficult it is to do in all cases. Are there any plans to rewrite that in C and add proper support for SQL commands? (e.g. "CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW", "DROP VIEW", ...). Best regards, Hans -- Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig Schoengrabern 134