On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:47:28 +0800
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Just loaded up delicious 7.4b5 and wow...
> >>
> >>sort_mem 8192: 137038ms [lots of tmp file activity]
> >>sort_mem 256000: 83109ms
> >
> 1. A full ANALYZE
> 2. A delete all from pg_statistic
>
I had prev
Just loaded up delicious 7.4b5 and wow...
sort_mem 8192: 137038ms [lots of tmp file activity]
sort_mem 256000: 83109ms
Hmm, 298383 -> 83109 (since those are the 256k numbers). Not as
much as I'd have hoped, but I'll take a factor of 3.
Hi Jeff,
Could you let us know the load times when you ha
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:22:04 -0500
Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you're restoring from a pg_dump -Fc (compressed dump) it already
> happens for you. The indexes and foreign keys are not added until the
> very end, from what I recall.
>
This happens with regular dumps - at the end
John K. Herreshoff wrote:
> That did not take long... about 13 minutes to reload the tables from an *.mdb
> file, and a second or two for each of the 'alter table foo add foreign
> key...' lines. I tried to drop a 'referencing' table, and the database would
> not let me, said that something dep
> "J" == Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
J> And this leads to the place we'd get a huge benefit: Restoring
J> backups.. If there were some way to bump up sort_mem while doing
J> the restore.. things would be much more pleasant. [Although, even
There was a rather substantial thread on this a
That did not take long... about 13 minutes to reload the tables from an *.mdb
file, and a second or two for each of the 'alter table foo add foreign
key...' lines. I tried to drop a 'referencing' table, and the database would
not let me, said that something depended on it ;o)
Is there some way
John K. Herreshoff wrote:
> I'm not sure about the analyze stats... Where would I find that (in
> postgresql.conf I suppose) I'll go see what I have set up, and get back to
> you in 30 minutes or less...
They are in pg_statistic. If you have ever anaylzed the table, there
are stats. I am in
I'm not sure about the analyze stats... Where would I find that (in
postgresql.conf I suppose) I'll go see what I have set up, and get back to
you in 30 minutes or less...
John.
On Tuesday 28 October 2003 13:34, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> John K. Herreshoff wrote:
> > FWIW: I'm fiddling with th
John K. Herreshoff wrote:
> FWIW: I'm fiddling with that right now, and the FK think was quick... a few
> seconds... the tables in question have 1400 records, 343000 records and 7200
> records... I'm running Beta5...
Did those tables have analyze statistics? Can you try it without
statistic
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:32:36 -0800 (PST)
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, 298383 -> 83109 (since those are the 256k numbers). Not as
> much as I'd have hoped, but I'll take a factor of 3.
Yes. those are the numbers for 256MB of sort_mem.
It seemed to saturate the IO so once I get
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Jeff wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:16:45 -0500
> Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > 7.3.4: 328912ms [cpu pegged]
> > 7.4b4: 298383ms [cpu pegged]
> >
>
> Just loaded up delicious 7.4b5 and wow...
>
> sort_mem 8192: 137038ms [lots of tmp file activity]
> sort_mem 256000
FWIW: I'm fiddling with that right now, and the FK think was quick... a few
seconds... the tables in question have 1400 records, 343000 records and 7200
records... I'm running Beta5...
John.
On Tuesday 28 October 2003 10:21, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Jeff wrote:
> > I reca
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:16:45 -0500
Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 7.3.4: 328912ms [cpu pegged]
> 7.4b4: 298383ms [cpu pegged]
>
Just loaded up delicious 7.4b5 and wow...
sort_mem 8192: 137038ms [lots of tmp file activity]
sort_mem 256000: 83109ms
That's some good work there Lou, You'll
Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I recalled seeing a thread on -HACKERS about some major improvements to the speed of
> adding an FK to an existing table in 7.4. Naturally I was curious and decided to
> give it a whirl. My findings are not too good. In fact, they are bad.
> 7.4b4, 10k shared b
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Jeff wrote:
> I recalled seeing a thread on -HACKERS about some major improvements to
> the speed of adding an FK to an existing table in 7.4. Naturally I was
> curious and decided to give it a whirl. My findings are not too good. In
> fact, they are bad.
>
> Could it be this
I recalled seeing a thread on -HACKERS about some major improvements to the speed of
adding an FK to an existing table in 7.4. Naturally I was curious and decided to give
it a whirl. My findings are not too good. In fact, they are bad.
Could it be this patch never made it in?
Anyway, here's th
16 matches
Mail list logo
