Once upon a time, David Huen wrote:
> On Thursday 05 Jun 2003 6:07 pm, Y D Sun wrote:
> > Having created the indices as following and restarted postmaster, the
> > performance of feature filtering is even worse. Maybe MySQL is a better
> > choice than PostgreSQL. Does anyone have the similar experience?
> >
> Was the access code exactly as you depicted it? ie. only filtering on "CDS".
> Also what was the dataset you searched? was it the same dataset in both
> EMBL flat file and BioSQL? What is your version of postgresql and what was
> the platform?
>
> I think we need some details to try to get to the bottom of this one, the
> more the better ;-) In my experience, while postgresql may not be faster,
> I've never known it to be this much worse. Something is wrong here and
> we'd like to fix it.
Yes, I'm definitely a bit worried.
>From one of your earlier messages, it sounds like you only have
around 10 sequences loaded. How big are these and how many features?
Frankly, unless your database is pretty large, the queries shouldn't
be taking as long as you say even without any indices at all.
Combined with the problems creating indices, and VACUUM making
matters worse rather than better, I wonder if your postgres
installation might be feeling a bit sickly.
What postgres version are you using?
Thomas.
_______________________________________________
Biojava-l mailing list - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://biojava.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l
