mark durrant wrote:
PostgreSQL Machine:
"Aggregate (cost=140122.56..140122.56 rows=1 width=0)
(actual time=24516.000..24516.000 rows=1 loops=1)"
" -> Index Scan using "day" on mtable
(cost=0.00..140035.06 rows=35000 width=0) (actual
time=47.000..21841.000 rows=1166025 loops=1)"
"Inde
> Post the result of this for us:
>
> explain analyze select count(*) from mtable where
> day='Mon';
>
> On both machines.
Hi Chris --
PostgreSQL Machine:
"Aggregate (cost=140122.56..140122.56 rows=1 width=0)
(actual time=24516.000..24516.000 rows=1 loops=1)"
" -> Index Scan using "day" on m
select count(*) from mtable where day='Mon'
Results:
1. P3 600 512MB RAM MSSQL. It takes about 4-5 secs to
run. If I run a few queries and everything is cached,
it is sometimes just 1 second.
2. Athlon 1.3 Ghz 1GB RAM. PostgreSQL takes 7 seconds.
I have played with the buffers setting and cu
Hi,
I have some experience with MSSQL and am examining
PostgreSQL. I'm running under Windows. I like what I
see so far, but I'm hoping for some performance
advice:
1. My test database has 7 million records.
2. There are two columns - an integer and a char
column called Day which has a random val
I would tell him to go for the random, which is what most DBs would be by
nature. What you need to understand will be the cache parameters, read/write
cache amount, and stripe size, depending on your controller type and whatever
it defaults to on these things.
Thanks,
Anjan
-Origi
David,
> > I just got a question from one our QA guys who is configuring a RAID 10
> > disk that is destined to hold a postgresql database. The disk
> > configuration procedure is asking him if he wants to optimize for
> > sequential or random access. My first thought is that random is what we
> >
David Parker wrote:
> I just got a question from one our QA guys who is configuring a RAID 10
> disk that is destined to hold a postgresql database. The disk
> configuration procedure is asking him if he wants to optimize for
> sequential or random access. My first thought is that random is what we
God I love the sheer brilliance of that minus trick :-))
Tnx a lot
BTW: Are there any plans to change this kind of indexing behaviour ?
It makes no sense at all, and, it makes databases slow when you don't know about this.
On 23 May 2005, at 23:15, Andrew Lazarus wrote:
What you are trying to
I just got a
question from one our QA guys who is configuring a RAID 10 disk that is destined
to hold a postgresql database. The disk configuration procedure is asking him if
he wants to optimize for sequential or random access. My first thought is that
random is what we would want, but then
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 15:23 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Well, that raises an interesting issue, because AFAIK none of the cost
> > estimate functions currently do that. Heck, AFAIK even the piggyback
> > seqscan code doesn't take other seqscans into account.
>
> Sure. But you're striving for g
As far as I know, to use a straight index Postgres requires either
ORDER BY pages, description -- or --
ORDER BY pages DESC, description DESC.
If you want the results by pages DESC, description ASC, then you have to
make an index on an expression or define your own operator or something
esoter
You didn't say what version of PostgreSQL you're trying.
I recall old version doesn't used index for backward pagination.
Oleg
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
I tried that, but
create index ixTest on table1 (pages desc, documentname)
gives me a syntax error
On 23 May 2005, at 2
I tried that, but
create index ixTest on table1 (pages desc, documentname)
gives me a syntax error
On 23 May 2005, at 20:03, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:41:19PM +0200, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
However, when I query my db using for instance order by pages,
documentn
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:41:19PM +0200, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
> However, when I query my db using for instance order by pages,
> documentname, it is very fast.
> If I use order by pages desc, documentname, it is not fast at
> all, like it is not using the index properly at all.
Make an
Begin forwarded message:
From: Yves Vindevogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon 23 May 2005 19:23:16 CEST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Index on table when using DESC clause
Hi,
I have a table with multiple fields. Two of them are documentname and pages
I have indexes on documentname and on pag
15 matches
Mail list logo
