R: R: [PERFORM] Query plan on identical tables differs . Why ?

-Messaggio originale- Da: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: giovedì 13 maggio 2004 17.01 A: Fabio Panizzutti Cc: 'Shridhar Daithankar'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oggetto: Re: R: [PERFORM] Query plan on identical tables differs . Why ? Fabio Panizzutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I

R: R: [PERFORM] Query plan on identical tables differs . Why ?

-Messaggio originale- Da: Stephan Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: giovedì 13 maggio 2004 17.17 A: Fabio Panizzutti Cc: 'Shridhar Daithankar'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oggetto: Re: R: [PERFORM] Query plan on identical tables differs . Why ? On Thu, 13 May 2004, Fabio Panizzutti

R: R: [PERFORM] Query plan on identical tables differs . Why ?

Index Scan using pk_storico_misure_2 on storico_misure (cost=0.00..1984.64 rows=658 width=21) (actual time=723.441..1858.107 rows=835 loops=1) Index Cond: ((data_tag '2004-05-03 00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone) AND (data_tag '2004-05-12 00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone)

Re: R: R: [PERFORM] Query plan on identical tables differs . Why ?

I trust in my hardware an O.S so fsync setting is a big dubt for my production enviroment . Then you are making a big mistake, loving your hardware more than your data... Chris ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list

R: R: R: [PERFORM] Query plan on identical tables differs . Why ?

-Messaggio originale- Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per conto di Christopher Kings-Lynne Inviato: venerdì 14 maggio 2004 11.55 A: Fabio Panizzutti Cc: 'Manfred Koizar'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oggetto: Re: R: R: [PERFORM] Query plan on identical tables differs . Why ? I

Re: [PERFORM] TPCH 100GB - need some help

On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 14:00, Eduardo Almeida wrote: Hi folks, I need some help in a TPCH 100GB benchmark. Performance with 7.5 is much improved over 7.4 for TPCH due to efforts of Tom Lane and OSDL. Give it a try with a recent snapshot of PostgreSQL. Otherwise, disable nested loops for that

[PERFORM] numeric data types

Hi all, i have a question, is there any advantages in using numeric(1) or numeric(2) in place of smallint? is there any diff. in performance if i use smallint in place of integer? Thanx in advance, Jaime Casanova _ Help STOP SPAM

Re: [PERFORM] numeric data types

Jaime Casanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i have a question, is there any advantages in using numeric(1) or numeric(2) in place of smallint? Performance-wise, smallint is an order of magnitude better. regards, tom lane ---(end of

Re: [PERFORM] Quad processor options - summary

I would recommend trying out several stripe sizes, and making your own measurements. A while ago I was involved in building a data warehouse system (Oracle, DB2) and after several file and db benchmark exercises we used 256K stripes, as these gave the best overall performance results for both