On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 15:52, Arya F wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:46 PM Michael Lewis wrote:
> >
> > What kinds of storage (ssd or old 5400 rpm)? What else is this machine
> > running?
>
> Not an SSD, but an old 1TB 7200 RPM HDD
>
> > What configs have been customized such as work_mem or
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:46 PM Michael Lewis wrote:
>
> What kinds of storage (ssd or old 5400 rpm)? What else is this machine
> running?
Not an SSD, but an old 1TB 7200 RPM HDD
> What configs have been customized such as work_mem or random_page_cost?
work_mem = 2403kB
random_page_cost = 1.1
What kinds of storage (ssd or old 5400 rpm)? What else is this machine
running?
What configs have been customized such as work_mem or random_page_cost?
I have created the following table to duplicate my performance
numbers, but I have simplified the table for this question.
I'm running PostgreSQL 12 on the following hardware.
Dual Xeon Quad-Core E5320 1.86GHz
4GB of RAM
The table structure is
id uuid
address_api_url text
check_timestamp tim
On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 09:58:27AM +0100, James Thompson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Hoping someone can help with this performance issue that's been driving a
> few of us crazy :-) Any guidance greatly appreciated.
>
> A description of what you are trying to achieve and what results you
> expect.:
> - I'd
Hi,
Hoping someone can help with this performance issue that's been driving a
few of us crazy :-) Any guidance greatly appreciated.
A description of what you are trying to achieve and what results you
expect.:
- I'd like to get an understanding of why the following query (presented
in full, but
> I don't *think* we are using SSDs but I'll need to confirm that though.
Confirmed we are not using SSDs but '10K RPM SAS in RAID-10.'
I've also been hunt for other queries that show this behaviour too,
and I've found one. The PG settings/versions will be different in this
example due to the ea
