On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 00:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I wasn't very happy with effective_cache_size and not happy with
> > shared_buffers either. If building hash indexes is memory critical then
> > we just need to say so and encourage others to set memor
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wasn't very happy with effective_cache_size and not happy with
> shared_buffers either. If building hash indexes is memory critical then
> we just need to say so and encourage others to set memory use correctly.
> People are already aware that maintenance
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 00:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> I'm considering changing hashbuild to sw
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I'm considering changing hashbuild to switch over at shared_buffers instead
>>> of effective_cache_s
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Alex Hunsaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 50,000,000 rows and 32,768,000 collisions
I should mention thats 50 million rows + 32 million more or 62,768,000
rows which explains some of the added index creation time...
> index time:
> head: 576600.967 ms
> v5:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> BTW, one thing I noticed was that the hash index build time for the
>> "wide column" case got a lot worse after applying the patch (from 56 to
>> 237
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, one thing I noticed was that the hash index build time for the
> "wide column" case got a lot worse after applying the patch (from 56 to
> 237 sec). The reason for this turned out to be that with the smaller
> predicted in
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Kenneth Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 08:51:53PM -0600, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Kenneth Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Alex,
>> >
>> > I meant to check the performance with increasing numbers
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 10:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 09:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Do we really need a checkpoint there at all?
>
> > "Timelines only change at shutdown checkpoints".
>
> Hmm. I *think* that that is just a deb
