On May 6, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Richard Huxton wrote:
Dimitri wrote:
I'll try to answer all mails at once :-))
- query is running fully in RAM, no I/O, no network, only CPU time
- looping 100 times the same query gives 132ms total time (~1.32ms
per
query), while it's 44ms on InnoDB (~0.44ms per
On Nov 17, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 10:16 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Ahhh. Keep in mind that if you just run the query, pgadminIII will
tell you how long it took to run AND return al
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performa
63 rows=579933 loops=1)
Total runtime: 2318.647 ms
What I am trying to understand is why PostgreSQL want's to use
idx_details over it's primary_key?
I am sure that 'simply' setting cpu_tuple_cost to 0.25 from 0.01 is
not a good idea..?
Ries van Twisk
SHOW ALL;
add_mi
