Mike Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You should bump sort_mem as high as you can stand. with only 8MB sort
> memory available, you're swapping intermediate sort pages to disk --
> a lot. Try the query with sort_mem set to 75MB (to do the entire sort in
> memory).
7.4 will probably flip over
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 19:27:16 -0800,
Mike Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You should bump sort_mem as high as you can stand. with only 8MB sort
> memory available, you're swapping intermediate sort pages to disk --
> a lot. Try the query with sort_mem set to 75MB (to do the entire sort
Hi,
I searched through the archive and could not find any conclusive
discussion of results on this.
Has anyone compared the disk space usage between PostgreSQL
and Oracle ?
I am interested in knowing for the same tuple (i.e same
dictionary), the disk usage between the two.
Thanks.
Gan
--
+---
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:52:05 +1100
Bradley Tate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I correct in interpreting that most time was spent doing the
> sorting?
looks so. your table is about 70MB total size, and its getting loaded
completely into memory (you have 12000 * 8k = 96M available). 26s to
load
David Teran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Much better. So i think i will first read more about this optimization
> stuff and regular maintenance things.
See http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/maintenance.html
> Is there any hint where to start to understand more about this
> optimizati
Hi,
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
select relpages,reltuples from pg_class where relname=;
Assuming the stats are recent enough, it would be much faster and accurate..
this needs an analyze ; before select from pg_class, cause
only after analyze will update pg the pg_class
C.
Hi,
We've set up a little test box (1GHz Athlon, 40G IDE drive, 256M RAM,
Redhat 9) to do some basic comparisons between postgresql and firebird
1.0.3 and 1.5rc8. Mostly the results are comparable, with one
significant exception.
QUERY
select invheadref, invprodref, sum(units)
from invtran
gro
... wow:
executing a batch file with about 4250 selects, including lots of joins
other things PostgreSQL 7.4 is about 2 times faster than FrontBase
3.6.27. OK, we will start to make larger tests but this is quite
interesting already: we did not optimize a lot, just invoked VACUUM
ANALYZE and t
Andrew,
> None of this is to say that jfs is in fact to blame, nor even that,
> if it is, it does not have something to do with the age of our
> installations, &c. (these are all RH 8). In fact, I suspect hardware
> in both cases. But I thought I'd mention it just in case other
> people are seei
